[00:00:04]
[CALL TO ORDER ]
QUORUM.LET'S GO AHEAD AND CALL THE ROLE.
I AM JESSICA COHEN, YOUR CHAIR.
CAN WE BRING THE, UH, VIRTUAL MEMBERS ONLINE PLEASE SO I CAN SEE THEM? THANK YOU.
CAN YOU HEAR ME? STILL NOT HEARING YOU IS PRETTY, PRETTY FAINT.
IS IT COMING THROUGH? HERE? HERE.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CELL PHONES OR PUT THEM ON VIBRATE AFTER YOUR CASE IS OVER.
PLEASE TAKE DISCUSSION OUTSIDE THE LOBBY.
IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR CASE, PLEASE CALL THE BOARD LIAISON TOMORROW, ONLY RAMIREZ.
YOU'VE PROBABLY BEEN WORKING WITH HER.
WHEN YOU ARE ADDRESSING THE BOARD, PLEASE SPEAK DIRECTLY TO THE BOARD.
IF THERE'S ANY OPPOSITION, DO NOT SPEAK TO EACH OTHER FOR YOUR PARKING TICKETS.
SO WHEN YOU CAME IN, YOU SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN A LITTLE PIECE OF PAPER WITH A QR CODE IN ORDER TO GET YOUR PARKING VALIDATED.
THERE ARE SOME LITTLE, UH, PRINTOUTS HERE BY WHERE YOU WALKED IN.
GRAB ONE OF THOSE, YOU'LL SCAN THE ONE YOU GOT WHEN YOU DROVE INTO THE GARAGE.
YOU'LL SCAN THAT AND THAT WILL VALIDATE YOUR PARKING.
SO IT'S A TWO CODE SYSTEM, TWO PIECES OF PAPER.
I'D LIKE TO ASK EVERYONE WHO WILL BE GIVING TESTIMONY ON A CASE TONIGHT TO PLEASE STAND.
YOU'D BE ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO EITHER FILED THE CASE OR SOMEONE WITHSTANDING WHO ASKED TO SPEAK ON THE CASE.
DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU WILL GIVE TONIGHT WILL BE TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE? OKAY.
[APPROVAL OF MINUTES ]
START WITH APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER 9TH, 2024.DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOTION TO APPROVE? OKAY, DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND OIA.
I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE MADE BY VICE CHAIR HAWTHORNE.
SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER VON OLAND.
I NEED TO ABSTAIN SINCE I WASN'T THERE.
ALRIGHT, ELAINE, HAS ANYONE SIGNED UP FOR PUBLIC COMMUNICATION? OKAY, WE'LL START WITH ITEM TWO.
THIS IS A RECONSIDERATION APPEAL CASE C 15 20 24 0 0 2 5.
THE APPELLATE AGENT IS NICOLE.
[Items 3, 4 & 6]
WE GONNA DO POSTPONEMENTS? YES.SEE, AND THIS IS WHY THE AGENDA SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN CHANGED.
DO, DO WE HAVE POSTPONEMENTS? AND I THOUGHT WE HAD A FEW POSTPONEMENTS.
THE FIRST ONE IS ITEM THREE C 15 20 24 DASH 28.
UM, THIS ONE'S A POSTPONEMENT TO 11 14 24
[00:05:02]
REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT.THEY ARE NEEDING MORE TIME TO MEET WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND THEN THERE IS ITEM FOUR C 15 DASH 2024 DASH 31, 26, 15, AND A HALF HILLVIEW ROAD.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO POSTPONE UNTIL NOVEMBER 14TH, 2024.
AND THEN THE LAST ITEM IS ITEM SIX C 15 DASH 2024 DASH 0 3 4 7 0 5.
UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ANA IS REQUESTING TO POSTPONE THIS TILL NOVEMBER 14TH, 2024.
AND THESE ARE ALL FOR NOVEMBER 14TH? YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
SO CAN YOU SAY THEM IN LIKE HUMAN TERMS SO THAT PEOPLE ARE HERE? YES.
AND NOT THE NUMBER TERMS. OKAY.
SO THAT THEY, THIS IS GOING TO BE ITEM THREE C 15 2 24 0 0 2 8.
THAT'S, UH, JOSEPH MALOFF GREEN BAY REMODELING FOR WENDY JO.
1 4 0 6 SOUTH THIRD STREET, ITEM FOUR C 15, 20 24 0 0 3 1.
VICTORIA HASI FOR AUSTIN AREA SCHOOL FOR DYSLEXICS, 26 15 AND A HALF HILLVIEW ROAD.
AND ITEM SIX C 15 20 24 0 0 3 4.
ROBERT ALLISON FOR BRAD HOSKINS.
7 0 5 BROWNLEY CIRCLE POSTPONING TO NOVEMBER 14TH.
WE HAVE A MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER VON OWEN SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR HOFFLER.
SHE, THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY THOSE CASES ARE POSTPONED TILL NOVEMBER 14TH, WHICH IS NOT A MONDAY.
BUT THANK YOU FOR COMING DOWN FOR THE CASE TONIGHT.
AND I'M SORRY TO SEND YOU AWAY, BUT BETTER NOW THAN AN HOUR OR TWO FROM NOW.
OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ONTO THE MME. CHURCH.
[6. C15-2024-0034 Robert Allison for Brad Hoskins 705 Brownlee Circle (Part 1 of 3)]
CHAIR.WE HAVE SOME PEOPLE FOR THE 7 0 5 BROWNLEY, RIGHT? 7 0 5 BROWNLY.
THAT WANNA CONTEST THAT POSTPONEMENT REQUEST BY AWANA.
UH, DID THEY SIGN UP TO SPEAK? YES.
WE CAN SIGN UP FOR, UH, SO ARE YOU, IT'S BECAUSE THE MOTION WAS MADE VERY QUICKLY.
UH, SO I GUESS, DO I NEED TO GO, COME ON UP TO THE PODIUM.
STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
YOU'LL GET THREE MINUTES, BUT IT'S POSTPONED BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY VOTED ON IT.
BUT WE DIDN'T GET TO MAKE THE, I WE DIDN'T GET TO MAKE THE CASE.
WE DON'T BELIEVE IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN POSTPONED IN THE FIRST PLACE.
THAT WAS ANA REQUESTING A POSTPONEMENT, BUT WE DIDN'T GET TO MAKE THE CASE.
WHY WE THINK IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE POSTPONED IN THE FIRST PLACE.
SO CAN WE HAVE THE FIVE MINUTES? I'M NOT SURE WHY GENERALLY DIDN'T GET THE, GENERALLY SPEAKING, WHEN THE APPLICANT COMES AND REQUESTS TO POSTPONE IT, WE GRANT IT THE FIRST TIME.
IF THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMES AND ASKS FOR A POSTPONEMENT, WE GRANT IT THE FIRST TIME.
WHICH IS WHY WE, WE MADE THE MOTION.
I MEAN, WHAT IF THE APPLICANT AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD DON'T AGREE ON THE POSTPONEMENT? IN THIS CASE, OUR APPLICANT, US AND THE HOMEOWNER DIDN'T WANT THE POSTPONEMENT AT ALL.
AND WE, AND WE FEEL LIKE OUR CASE IS PRETTY CUT AND DRY AND IT SHOULD BE OBVIOUS WHY WE DON'T THINK ONE'S NEEDED.
WHAT WHAT DO YOU DO IN A CASE WHEN WE DON'T AGREE WITH THE POSTPONEMENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD? SO DOES THE HOMEOWNER GET DEFERENCE? SO, UH, DID YOU STATE YOUR NAME IN THE RECORD? DAVE? SORRY.
I'M DAVID WEBBER, STUDIO ARCHITECT.
CAN I, UH, HEAR FROM CITY LEGAL PLEASE? MIGHT I, 'CAUSE WE CAN'T DO A MOTION TO RECONSIDER SOMEONE WOULD'VE HAD TO HAVE VOTED NO.
SO IF YOU COULD JUST STEP AWAY FROM THE PODIUM FOR A SECOND.
AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, MY ROBERT RULES ORDERS SAY THAT IF NO ONE VOTED AGAINST IT, THERE'S NO FAILING SIDE OF THE MOTION, THEN WE CAN'T RECONSIDER IT.
IS THAT CORRECT? RESCIND YOUR MOTION.
MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO RESCIND THE BOARD'S MOTION.
TAKE THE VOTE AGAIN WITH JUST THE
[00:10:01]
TWO CASES WHERE THERE'S NO OPPOSITION.AND THEN HEAR THE, HAVE ANOTHER MOTION, SEPARATE MOTION ON JUST THE, UM, POSTPONEMENT AND SPEAK TO THE MAYOR.
HOW CAN WE RESCIND IT IF NO ONE VOTED AGAINST IT? IT HAS TO BE SOMEONE FROM THE OPPOSING PARTY.
I, I THINK IN, IN ORDER TO CONTINUE THE BUSINESS OF THE BOARD AND ENSURE THAT EVERYBODY IS HEARD AND THE APPLICANT IS HEARD, UM, SINCE THERE WASN'T TIME FOR, UM, WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS ANY, UH, OPPOSITION TO THE POSTPONEMENT IN, IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT EVERYBODY'S KIND OF HEARD, THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDED COURSE OF ACTION.
SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO RESEND AND RECONSIDER OUR PREVIOUS ACTION.
OKAY, THEN LET'S CALL THE VOTE ON THAT.
IS THAT NOISE? JEFFREY BOWEN ISN'T GONNA DRIVE ME INTO YOUR SURE.
LEAL, YOU NEED TO TURN ON YOUR VIDEO.
YOUR VOTE DOESN'T COUNT IF WE CAN'T SEE YOUR FACE.
NO, BECAUSE I THINK THIS GOES AGAINST OUR RULES, BUT WE'LL OFFER IT UP WITH ITEMS THREE
[Items 3 & 4]
AND FOUR, BUT NOT SIX.SO THIS WILL BE FOR 1406 SOUTH THIRD STREET AND 26 15 AND A HALF HILLVIEW ROAD POSTPONING TILL NOVEMBER 4TH.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO NOVEMBER 14TH.
THOSE TWO CASES ARE POSTPONED.
SO NOW WE HAVE A UNTIL NOVEMBER 14TH.
[6. C15-2024-0034 Robert Allison for Brad Hoskins 705 Brownlee Circle (Part 2 of 3)]
DISCUSSION.SO ITEM SIX, DISCUSSION POSTPONEMENT.
BUT IS I WANNA HERE? YES, YES, YES.
SO FIRST WE WOULD BE HEARING FROM SOMEONE IN SUPPORT OF THE POSTPONEMENT OR THE APPELLANT.
WHO'S THE APPLICANT FOR THIS CASE? IT'S ROBERT ALLISON FOR BRAD HOSKINS.
AND AND TO BE CLEAR, THIS IS TO THEM NOT TO THE MERIT OF THE CASE.
THIS IS TO THE POSTPONEMENT ONLY TO THE POSTPONEMENT.
THIS IS A DISCUSSION POSTPONEMENT.
I'M A LITTLE, SO I'M NOT, YOU'RE NOT PRESENTING THE CASE.
WE'RE DISCUSSING THE POSTPONEMENT.
IF THIS IS ONLY DISCUSSION, YOU'RE BASICALLY GONNA ABOUT FOUR OR AGAINST POSTPONEMENT.
WHY? OR WHY WE SHOULDN'T POSTPONE.
WELL, FIRST OF ALL, BECAUSE THIS IS OUR CLIENT'S, UH, I'M DAVID WEBER FROM WEBER STUDIO ARCHITECTS.
UH, THANK YOU FOR, FOR RESCINDING AND REVOLTING.
SO OUR CLIENTS HAVE NOT GOTTEN TO MAKE THE CASE.
THEY REALLY DON'T HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THE CASE IN FRONT OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IN NOVEMBER AND NOR IN DECEMBER, THEY'VE GOT SOME FAMILY HEALTH ISSUES RELATED TO ONE OF OUR CLIENTS' BROTHERS THAT SHE'S GOTTA HELP WITH.
AND THEY'RE BOTH GONNA, UH, BRAD IS GONNA BE OUT OF TOWN FOR INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL FOR BUSINESS IN NOVEMBER.
FURTHERMORE, WE ACTUALLY THINK THAT THE CASE IS REALLY PRETTY STRAIGHT AHEAD.
WE THINK THAT WE CAN EXPLAIN TO YOU WE CAN'T DISCUSS THE MERITS OF THE CASE.
I'M JUST SAYING I THINK THAT IT'S SO SIMPLE.
I THINK THAT EVERYBODY HERE WILL AGREE IT DOESN'T NEED A POSTPONEMENT.
AND SO THAT'S WHY WE'D LIKE NAS TO POSTPONE THE CASE.
WE ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT IF WE PRESENT THE CASE AND THERE'S A LIKELIHOOD OF EITHER DENIAL OR REQUEST FOR POSTPONEMENT AT THAT, AT THAT POINT, WE'LL HAVE TO BE PREPARED FOR WHATEVER COMES OUT OF THAT.
BUT WE FEEL LIKE WE SHOULD BE, HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO AT LEAST
[00:15:01]
PRESENT THE CASE, THE MERITS OF THE CASE FOR WHY WE DON'T THINK, UH, IT WILL NEED A POSTPONEMENT.SO I THINK STILL HAVE A MINUTE 55 LEFT.
WELL, I'M, I'M NOT, 'CAUSE I'VE NEVER TRIED TO MAKE A CASE WHY A POSTPONEMENT SHOULD OR SHOULDN'T HAPPEN.
I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE HOW TO PRESENT THAT OTHER THAN I, I THINK QUITE SIMPLY OUR CLIENTS ARE HERE TO, TO MAKE THE CASE FOR WHY THEY SHOULD, UH, WHY THEY'RE SEEKING THE VARIANCES THAT THEY'RE SEEKING.
AND JUST BECAUSE ANA DOESN'T AGREE, I DON'T KNOW WHY ANA'S, UH, PREFERENCE TO POSTPONE THE CASE SHOULD OVERRIDE THE CLI OUR CLIENTS, THE HOMEOWNER'S OPPORTUNITY TO AT LEAST MAKE THE CASE.
DO WE HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE FROM ANA OR AN EMAIL? YEAH, RIGHT THERE.
IF YOU'LL COME UP TO THE PODIUM, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
I'M REPRESENTING THE OLD WEST AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
UM, SO WE JUST FOUND OUT ABOUT THIS CASE ABOUT 10 DAYS AGO, UM, IN THE NOTIFICATION.
AND SO OUR KIND OF STANDARD PRACTICE IS, UNLESS WE GET FURTHER INFORMATION FROM THE APPLICANT TO ASK FOR POSTPONEMENT, AND THAT CONVERSATION ONLY STARTED A FEW DAYS AGO.
UM, I THINK IF THIS, THIS VENUE CAN ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS CASE, THEN I THINK IT PRO CAN PROBABLY PROCEED.
SO, UM, UH, THAT'S THE MAIN REASON WE POSTPONED.
SO, UH, I'LL LEAVE IT TO Y'ALL.
MAD GONNA ASK A QUESTION, UH, AND NOT JUST YET.
UH, YOU'LL HAVE, UH, TWO MINUTES FOR A REBUTTAL.
IT SOUNDS LIKE IF ANA IS OPEN TO, UH, HEARING THE MERITS OF THE CASE, THEN IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY MIGHT NOT BE FIRM ON POSTPONEMENT THEMSELVES.
SO I REQUEST THAT WE SIMPLY GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT THE MERITS OF THE CASE.
I THINK WE'LL ALL FIND THAT THE MERITS OF THE CASE ARE ACTUALLY IN THE BEST INTEREST WE BELIEVE OF ANA AND THE, AND OUR CLIENTS.
AND SO THAT'S WHY WE DON'T THINK THERE'S MUCH HERE THAT'S WORTH A LOT OF, UH, HAND WRINGING OR DEBATE.
SO THAT'S WHY WE'D LIKE TO PRESENT THE, THE MERITS OF THE CASE.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING QUESTIONS.
MADAM CHAIR, SOMEBODY I HAD A QUESTION FOR ANA SOMEBODY.
WAS THERE, SOMEBODY ONLINE ASKED FIRST.
WHO, WHO HAD A QUESTION? VIRTUAL BOARD MEMBERS.
UM, I HAD A QUESTION FOR THE, UH, REPRESENTATIVE FROM ANA.
UM, DID YOU ALL REACH OUT TO THE HOMEOWNER FOR THAT INFORMATION OR WERE YOU JUST WAITING ON IT AND JUST REQUESTED THE POSTPONEMENT AS A MATTER OF COURSE? NO, WE DID REACH OUT TO THE APPLICANT AND ONLY A FEW DAYS AGO WAS IN, IN TOUCH WITH THE APPLICANT AND WITH MR. WEBER.
MM-HMM,
UM, THE, SO YOU'RE GATHERING THIS INFORM, I TAKE IT YOU'RE GATHERING, I KNOW HOW THE PROCESS WORKS, BUT YOU'RE GATHERING THIS INFORMATION IN ORDER TO TAKE IT TO YOUR ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE OR THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION IN ORDER TO EITHER GIVE THEM SUPPORT OR TO, UH, CORRECT YOUR CONCERNS? YES.
MOST OF THE TIME WHEN A BOA REQUEST COMES IN, UM, YOU KNOW, WE, WE ARE NOTIFIED THE NEARBY NEIGHBORS ARE NOTIFIED.
UM, IN SOME CASES WE SUPPORT, IN MOST CASES WE JUST DO NOT OPPOSE.
BUT IN THIS CASE, THERE WASN'T ENOUGH INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT WAS HAPPENING WITH THE CASE, WHICH IS WHY THE INITIAL REQUEST WAS TO POSTPONE.
OTHER QUESTIONS? MAAM? I HAVE QUESTION.
UM, SORRY, YOU'RE NOT PART OF THE SPEAKING PROCESS HERE.
THIS IS FOR BOARD MEMBERS ONLY.
ANYONE? DO I HAVE A MOTION? I HAVE QUESTION.
THIS IS BETWEEN THE BOARD MEMBERS ONLY.
AND, UH, IN DEFERENCE TO THE ARCHITECT AND BEING A CON CONTRACTOR MOST OF MY LIFE, I UNDERSTAND YOUR PREDICAMENT.
HOWEVER, THE IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE INCREASES OF IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE AND FAR INCREASES.
YOU COULDN'T HAVE PICKED THE TWO HARDEST ITEMS THAT WE FACE, UH, TO, TO TRY TO INCREASE.
AND NORMALLY WHEN WE HAVE THESE, THESE TYPE OF REQUESTS FOR IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE INCREASE AND THE FAR INCREASE, WE NORMALLY WILL ASK IF YOU HAVE MET WITH THE HOME,
[00:20:01]
WITH THE, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, EXCUSE ME, MY ALLERGIES, AND IF, IF YOU HAVE SUPPORT OR NOT, OR WHAT THEIR CONCERNS ARE.AND THAT'S WHY MY QUESTION WAS HAVE THEY MET YET? BECAUSE IF, IF THEY HAD MET AND THEY HAD BEEN ABLE TO REVIEW YOUR CASE, THEN THEY WOULD PROBABLY HAVE AN OPINION ON IT.
UM, AND I ALSO EMPATHIZE THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE GOT PERSONAL ISSUES GOING ON THERE.
MY, UNLESS THERE'S, UNLESS THE THE BODY, THE BOARD FEELS LIKE THEY WANT TO HEAR THIS, MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD PROBABLY BE TO WAIT UNTIL THEY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET IN ON IT.
BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE THEIR SUPPORT, OR IF THEY DON'T, THEY DECIDE NOT TO SUPPORT THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND, AND THEY'RE VERY ACTIVE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, ONE OF THE MOST ACTIVE THAT WE HAVE OUT UP THAT COME UP HERE.
AND, AND SO IF YOU HAVE THEIR SUPPORT, YOU'RE LIKELY GOING TO GET IT PRETTY MUCH.
NOT ALL THE TIMES, BUT SOME, YOU KNOW, MAJORITY OF THE TIMES.
UH, BUT WITHOUT HAVING THAT INPUT, I CAN PROBABLY COUNT A FEW PEOPLE THAT YOU MIGHT NOT HAVE THE VOTES TO GET IT TONIGHT.
AND I DON'T WANT YOU GUYS NOT TO HAVE A FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO GET WHAT YOU WANT.
JUST TO PUT CLARIFICATION, WE'RE NOT, UH, THIS IS NOT A, SORRY, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.
SO IS THAT A MOTION? YEAH, SO I'M, I AM GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE IT.
UH, I FEEL LIKE WITH THE ASK THAT WE'RE HAVING HERE, CONSIDER 10% OF THE FAR AND THE INCREASE OF ON THE IMPERVIOUS COVER.
I THINK, UH, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR, UH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION'S, UH, OPINION AND INPUT ON IT.
AND BY THE WAY, THAT GIVES YOU AN OPPORTUNITY IF THEY HAVE ANY CONCERNS TO GET TOGETHER WITH THEM AND WORK ON IT.
'CAUSE YOU COULD COME PRESENT THIS CASE.
YOU GO THROUGH THE WHOLE THING AND AT THE END SOMEBODY'S GONNA SAY, WELL, YOU KNOW WHAT? I WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION FEELS ABOUT IT BECAUSE THEY'RE A VERY ACTIVE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.
I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THE POSTPONEMENT, UH, BOARD MEMBER BOWEN? UH, YES.
I WAS GOING TO SECOND THAT, BUT, UH, THE FACT THAT THEY HAD ALREADY BEEN ON THE SCHEDULE AS BEING POSTPONED PRETTY MUCH SAID TO ME, THEY HAVEN'T DONE SOMETHING, SO LET'S GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THIS.
AND HONESTLY, THE ONE I SAW IT WAS POSTPONED BASED UPON THE NOTES THAT WE RECEIVED.
I JUST SKIPPED RIGHT OVER IT AND WENT TO THE OTHER CASES.
SO I DEFINITELY WANT TO HEAR WHAT THEY'VE GOT TO SAY.
BUT IF THESE TWO PARTIES HAVEN'T MET YET, THAT MAY MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE IN, IN THE AMOUNT OF, UH, WHAT THE PROCESS IS WHEN THEY ACTUALLY COME BACK ON NOVEMBER THE 14TH.
SO I'M IN TOTAL AGREEANCE THAT THIS NEEDS TO GO BACK TO THE 14TH.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY, LET'S CALL THE VOTE.
UM, JUST LOOKING AT THE LETTER, AM I READING IT CORRECTLY THAT THE APPLICANT IS UNABLE TO ATTEND IN NOVEMBER AND THEREFORE WILL LIKELY HAVE TO BE POSTPONED AGAIN? IS THAT WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING FROM THEIR EMAIL? THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.
I'D LIKE TO, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A COMPETING MOTION TO HEAR THE MERITS TODAY.
SO YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION? YEAH, SORRY.
UM, TO HEAR THE CASE IT WOULD BE TO DENY THE POSTPONEMENT.
RIGHT? TO DENY THE POSTPONEMENT.
WELL, I MEAN IF SHE HAS A SUBSTITUTE MOTION, IT GETS A SECOND, THEN IT GETS VOTED ON FIRST.
AND THEN COME BACK TO THE POSTPONEMENT, RIGHT.
CAN I ASK A SECOND QUESTION? ABSOLUTELY.
UM, WOULD THE HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION BE READY TO DISCUSS THE REASON WHY THEY WERE POSTPONING IN THE FIRST PLACE, WHICH WAS MISSING INFORMATION? AND IF THAT'S BEEN PROVIDED TODAY WITH THE OWNERS, UM, UM, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION BE READY TO DISCUSS IT TODAY? OR ARE THEY, ARE WE SAYING THEY NEED MORE TIME TO TAKE THE INFORMATION BACK AND DISCUSS IT AMONG THEMSELVES BEFORE THEY COME BACK HERE TO FULLY DISCUSS THE CASE? NO, I CAN ANSWER FOR THAT.
IF WE WOULD BE READY TO, TO DISCUSS THE CASE TONIGHT SO WE CAN RESCIND OUR POSTPONEMENT IF THAT HELPS IN ORDER TO GET THE CASE MOVING FORWARD SO THAT THESE HOMEOWNERS ARE NOT HAVING TO WAIT TWO MORE MONTHS.
BUT THERE WERE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS THAT NEEDED TO BE CLARIFIED, SO IF IT CAN BE CLARIFIED IN THIS PROCESS, WE'RE HAPPY TO MOVE FORWARD.
IF WE WERE TO TABLE THIS WHILE WE DEAL WITH OUR, UH, INTERPRETATION RECONSIDERATION, WOULD YOU TWO BE WILLING TO GO OUT TO THE LOBBY AND SEE WHAT YOU CAN HASH OUT OVER THE NEXT 30, 45 MINUTES? YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.
[00:25:01]
GOOD.SO I, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY, IF YOU DON'T MIND IF I JUST BUT IN HERE, SORRY.
SO TYPICALLY WHEN SOMEONE, SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE GUIDEBOOK, IT ACTUALLY SUGGESTS, AND I DO BELIEVE THAT THE EMAIL THAT ELAINE SENDS OUT WITH THE INFORMATION FOR, UH, A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CASES TO CONTACT THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR CONTACT THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONTACT TEAM.
AND SO THAT THESE ITEMS ARE RESOLVED PRIOR TO GETTING HERE.
AND IF YOU'RE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, YOU'RE GETTING A NOTICE 10 DAYS IN ADVANCE.
SO THAT'S FROM WHEN THEY MAIL IT.
SO THAT'S TYPICALLY WHEN THEY MAIL IT, YOU'RE GONNA GET IT ON THE FRIDAY BEFORE THE MONDAY OF THE MEETING, WHICH IS NOT A LOT OF TIME TO GET A GROUP OF PEOPLE TOGETHER TO ACTUALLY DISCUSS SOMETHING.
SO IT'S HIGHLY SUGGESTED THAT YOU DO THAT.
AND BEING THAT THIS IS A SUPER MAJORITY BOARD, YOU HAVE TO HAVE NINE OUT OF 10 VOTES.
IS THAT CORRECT? ERICA? NINE OUT OF 10.
ARE WE NINE OUT OF 10 RIGHT NOW? ARE WE EIGHT OUT OF 10 WITH THE BOARD MEMBER? WE HAVE A RESIGNATION, BUT THERE'S A CARRYOVER IS STEPPING DOWN.
IT'SS DIFFICULT, BUT HE'S STILL IN CARRYOVER, I'M PRETTY SURE FOR ANOTHER MONTH, WHICH WOULD STILL MAKE IT 11 OR NINE OUT OF 11.
YEAH, I THINK IT'S STILL NINE OUT OF 11 FOR ONE MORE MONTH.
A ERIC LOPEZ ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE'S STILL A HOLDOVER.
SO THE LEGAL THRESHOLD IS STILL NINE, SO YOU HAVE TO HAVE NINE OUT OF 10 VOTES.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S A PRETTY HIGH BAR.
AND IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT OR THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS IN OPPOSITION, UM, THAT'S NINE OUTTA 10.
AND, UH, SO, UM, I GUESS I, ARE YOU GOING TO WITHDRAW YOUR MOTION TO POST? WELL, ARE YOU GONNA, WELL, WE HAVE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION MADE BY BOARD MEMBER CHAIR ESTONIA.
BUT THEN YOU HAVE ANOTHER BOARD MEMBER.
SHE ESTON WOULD HAVE TO, UH, WITHDRAW HER MOTION AND THERE HAS TO BE NO OBJECTION TO THAT.
AND THEN THE POSTPONEMENT COULD BE WITHDRAWN THERE.
WELL, I THOUGHT YOU WERE MAKING A SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO TABLE IT UNTIL, I DON'T KNOW.
SO BOARD MEMBER SHERIFF STEINY, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO WITHDRAW YOUR MOTION? PEOPLE JUST DON'T WANNA VOTE TO, TO DENY THE POSTPONEMENT IS, IS THAT WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING? BUT WHAT WE WOULD DO IS WE WOULD END UP ULTIMATELY TABLING IT FOR THE AMOUNT OF TIME IT TAKES FOR US TO, UH, HEAR OH YEAH, THE RECONSIDERATION.
IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO THAT? WITHDRAWAL? AND THEN BOARD MEMBER VAN OWEN, DO YOU WANT TO WITHDRAW YOUR POSTPONEMENT CASE SO WE CAN YEAH, I'LL WITHDRAW IT.
I MEAN, I DON'T WANT TO, I DON'T WANT TO CAUSE THEM ANY UNDUE HARDSHIP.
IT WAS JUST ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT, UH, IF THE, IF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION THINKS THAT THEY CAN, SHE CAN SPEAK ON THEIR BEHALF AND THEY CAN WORK SOMETHING OUT.
SO IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION TO THAT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TABLE THIS ITEM, ITEM SIX, UH, UNTIL WE COMPLETE HEARING THE RECONSIDERATION APPEAL CASE.
SO IF YOU GUYS, I, I ACTUALLY THINK YOU SHOULD DO IT AFTER ITEM NUMBER FIVE, AFTER THE, UH, THE APPEAL CASE, THE GAS STATION CASE.
AFTER ITEM FIVE, THEN WE'LL DO THE RECONSIDERATION, THEN THE GAS STATION, AND THEN WE'LL VOTE AGAIN.
COURT IN THE NORMAL ORDER, WE WOULD BE NUMBER SIX.
THANK YOU FOR TAKING TIME TO GO TALK TO EACH OTHER.
UM, I, I, I WOULD, I AM CURIOUS ABOUT THIS GROUP OF PEOPLE AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE HERE FOR, WE'LL TALK ABOUT IT AFTER THE RECONSIDERATION.
I THINK THEY'RE HERE FOR A CASE.
OH, YOU'RE OBSERVING PROCESS WORK.
YOU'RE, YOU'RE, ARE Y'ALL STUDENTS? OKAY.
AH, WHAT CLASS IS THIS FOR? MADE SAUSAGE IS MADE THIS WAY.
[2. C15-2024-0025 Appellant’s Agent: Nicholl Wade - Appellant: Warren Konkel Owner: Christy May 6708 Bridge Hill Cove (Part 1 of 2)]
C 15 20 24 0 0 2 5.APPELLANT'S AGENT NICOLE WADE.
THE APPELLANT IS WARREN CONEL.
OWNER IS CHRISTINE MAY 67 0 8 BRIDGE HILL COVE.
THIS IS A RECONSIDERATION FOR THE ORIGINAL APPEAL.
SO THE WAY THIS WORKS IS IN ORDER TO HAVE A
[00:30:01]
RECONSIDERATION, SOMEONE FIRST HAS TO MAKE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER.IT HAS TO BE SECONDED, VOTED ON BEFORE WE CAN HEAR ANYTHING.
UH, THE REQUIREMENTS ARE THAT THERE HAS TO BE NEW EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD IN ORDER FOR IT TO REVIEW IT IN THE RECONSIDERATION.
SO WITH THAT, I WILL OPEN THIS UP FOR A MOTION.
I PERSONALLY DID NOT SEE ANY NEW EVIDENCE, BUT IF SOMEONE ELSE, CHAIR SOMETHING CHAIR BOARD MEMBER VAN NOLAN.
I'M ALREADY ON THE RECORD AS TO WHY I MOVED TO DENY LAST MONTH.
UH, LAST MONTH THROUGH CONSIDERATION AND SUPPORT STAFF'S DECISION, I AND I ALSO SEE NO NEW ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT WOULD MOVE ME TO CHANGE MY VIEW OR DECISION.
THEREFORE, AND I BELIEVE THE WAY STAFF'S GOING ABOUT, IT'S THE ONLY WAY WE'RE GONNA BRING ALL THESE OTHER PERMIT ISSUES INTO COMPLIANCE.
SO THEREFORE I WILL MOVE TO DENY AGAIN THIS, THIS MONTH THE RECONSIDERATION.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? I HAVE, YEAH.
OKAY, I HAVE A SECOND VICE CHAIR.
WE WILL NOT BE RECONSIDERING THE CASE.
[5. C15-2024-0032 Michele Rogerson Lynch for Sunoco-Vincent Record 3201 E SH 71 Svrd WB]
WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM FIVE.MICHELLE ROGERSON LYNCH FOR SUNOCO VINCENT RECORD.
3 2 0 1 EAST SOUTH, EAST STATE, HIGHWAY 71 SERVICE ROAD, WESTBOUND.
AND I THINK YOU KNOW THE DRILL.
AM I SUPPOSED TO CHECK SOMETHING? HELLO? THERE YOU GO.
AND I ALSO HAVE A DEGREE FROM, UH, GEOGRAPHY AND PLANNING.
AND THIS IS THE KIND OF FUN STUFF YOU GET TO DO.
UM, THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME TONIGHT.
THAT WAS ALL VERY ENTERTAINING.
AND YOU ARE MICHELLE LYNCH WITH METCALF WOLF.
I'M SORRY, I DID NOT SAY THAT.
UH, HERE AS APPLICANT TONIGHT, AFTER I GAVE YOU ALL THAT CREDIT
I GOT DISTRACTED WITH THE STUDENTS.
UM, NOT SUPPOSED TO ADVANCE IT MYSELF.
MICHELLE LYNCH, METCALF WOLF, STEWART AND WILLIAMS HERE TONIGHT AS APPLICANT ON BEHALF OF THIS ITEM, WHICH IS ALSO UNUSUAL.
UM, AND I HAVE NOT BEEN HERE SINCE 2022.
SO, YOU KNOW, I HAVE COME OVER THE MOST UNUSUAL THINGS WHEN I DO.
UM, I'VE ACTUALLY LOOKED AT THE CODE FOR THE LAST 24 YEARS PROFESSIONALLY AND AS A, A STAFFER AT ONE POINT.
AND I DON'T THINK I'VE EVER HEARD OF THIS SECTION.
UM, SO IT'S BEEN A, A LEARNING CURVE FOR ME AS WELL.
UH, BUT WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR TONIGHT IS ACTUALLY A SERVICE STATION, AS YOU SAW IN YOUR BACKUP.
UM, AND THERE'S SOME CRITERIA THAT ARE IN THE TRANSPORTATION CRITERIA MANUAL AS WELL AS THE ZONING CODE.
AND THE ZONING CODE IS WHAT WE'RE HERE TONIGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERATION FOR.
SO THERE'S SOME CRITERIA YOU SEE ON THE SCREEN.
IT MUST BE SCREENED FROM THE STREET TO THE BUILDING THAT IS, UM, THE, THE PUMPS FROM THE BUILDING OR A LANDSCAPE BUFFER.
AND WE MEET THAT WITH THE BUFFER OF LANDSCAPING.
WE MAY NOT HAVE MORE THAN 16 FUEL DISPENSERS.
WE HAVE ONLY 12 AND WE MAY NOT HAVE MORE THAN EIGHT VEHICLE QUEUE LANES.
YOU ACTUALLY HEARD SOME OF YOU, I THINK THREE OF YOU HERE HEARD THIS SIMILAR CASE IN 2019.
I WENT BACK AND WATCHED THE VIDEO OF THAT AND THERE WAS A LOT OF CONFUSION THEN AS WELL.
UM, WHICH LED TO, I THINK THE BOARD AT THAT TIME DECIDING THAT THEY WANTED TO HAVE THE INFAMOUS CODE NEXT CORRECT THIS PROBLEM, WHICH AS YOU ALL KNOW, NEVER HAPPENED.
THE TRANSPORTATION CRITERIA MANUAL, AS I MENTIONED, HAS A FIGURE NINE DASH 10, WHICH IDENTIFIES, UM, OUTDATED OPTIONS FOR DOUBLE STACKING CANOPIES.
AND I'LL EXPLAIN WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE IN A MOMENT.
BUT IT CAUSES MORE CAR CONFLICTS THAN WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING, WHICH IS BASICALLY PULLING STRAIGHT THROUGH AND THEN PULLING OUT ONCE YOU'RE DONE.
SO WE'RE NOT ABLE TO DOUBLE STACK.
ALSO BECAUSE WE HAVE SOME SPECIFIC SITE CONSTRAINTS, UM, THERE, IT'S INTENDED REALLY TO HAVE MORE SAFE CIRCULATION AND QUEUING AND WE ARE COMPLIANT WITH THAT.
THE TRANSPORTATION REVIEWER AND OUR
[00:35:01]
SITE PLAN THAT'S BEEN ON FILE IS, UM, FINE WITH OUR PROPOSAL.AND I'LL SEGUE FOR A MINUTE AND JUST SAY, THIS IS ACTUALLY OUR SECOND SITE PLAN.
UM, WE HAD ONE THAT EXPIRED IN REVIEW, SO WE RESUBMITTED IT AND IT WASN'T UNTIL WE RESUBMITTED THAT THIS PARTICULAR CODE SECTION CAME UP.
SO WE'RE PRETTY DEEP INTO THIS NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
UH, THIS IS A SLIDE FROM THE TRANSPORTATION CRITERIA MANUAL AGAIN.
SO THE AREA IN RED IS WHERE YOU NEED TO BE COMPLIANT WITH CIRCULATION AND QUEUING, AND WE DO MEET THOSE CRITERIA.
NEXT SLIDE HERE IS A SECTION FROM OUR SITE PLAN.
YOU'LL SEE THE PURPLE ARE THE QUEUING LANES.
SO THEY'RE INDIVIDUALLY MOVING STRAIGHT AS YOU CAN SEE.
UM, BUT WE DO MEET ALL OF THE, THE, UH, SITE DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS AROUND CIRCULATION.
I'LL MENTION IN A MINUTE THAT, OR IN MY APPLICATION THAT WE HAD AN ELECTRIC EASEMENT.
YOU'LL SEE THAT ON THE SOUTH THERE IS ONE CONSTRAINT ALONG WITH THE RIGHT OF WAY TAKING FROM 71.
HERE'S ANOTHER VIEW OF THE SITE.
YOU'LL SEE AT THE NORTHERN END THAT WE HAVE A LARGE DETENTION POND THAT'S REQUIRED.
SO THAT'S HEMMING US IN ALONG WITH THE RIGHT OF WAY THAT WAS TAKEN THERE TO THE WEST AND OUR THROAT LENGTH OFF OF EVA STREET.
SO THERE'S A LOT GOING ON WITH THE SITE AND, AND INCLUDING THAT TDOT IS LIMITING OUR ACCESS.
UM, AND SO THOSE ARE OUR SPECIFIC HARDSHIPS AND CONSTRAINTS THAT WERE IN THE APPLICATION.
THIS IS THE KIND OF THE DESIGN WE'RE LOOKING FOR THAT EXISTS IN OTHER PLACES IN THE CITY.
SO YOU'RE, YOU'RE PULLING STRAIGHT THROUGH AND YOU CAN JUST KIND OF ROLL THROUGH THESE NEXT SLIDES PLEASE.
ALL OF WHICH HAVE MORE THAN EIGHT Q LINES.
AND THIS ONE IS RIGHT DOWN THE STREET.
SO, IN SUMMARY, UM, WE BELIEVE WE HAVE A REASONABLE USE BECAUSE WE'RE DEALING WITH OUTDATED REGULATIONS.
THE NEWER DESIGNS ARE MORE SAFE AND THEY ALLOW FOR BETTER AIR QUALITY 'CAUSE YOU'RE NOT JOCKING AND WAITING TO GET IN POSITION.
OUR SPECIFIC HARDSHIP TO OUR SITE IS, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, WE HAVE A LIMITATIONS DUE TO THE THROAT LENGTH.
WE HAVE A STORMWATER POND, UM, PLACEMENT.
WE HAVE AN AUSTIN ELECTRIC, ANY EASEMENT AS WELL.
UH, WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE ARE NEGATIVELY AFFECTING OR ALTERING THE, UH, AREA CHARACTER.
WE'RE ACTUALLY PROPOSING SOMETHING TO SAFER DESIGN.
I MENTIONED WE HAVE A SITE PLAN AND REVIEW, SO I'M NOT COMING HERE HYPOTHETICALLY.
UM, AND I DID MENTION THAT IN 2019 WHEN I DID WATCH THE, UH, VIDEO THEN THAT YOU GUYS ACTUALLY WERE LOOKING TO RECONSIDER SOME LANGUAGE IN THE CODE AND I'M, I'M GUESSING THAT JUST DIDN'T MAKE IT
ANYWAY, THAT IS THE END OF MY PRESENTATION.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND I AM SEEKING YOUR SUPPORT TONIGHT FOR THIS PARTICULAR VARIANCE.
ALRIGHTY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION? OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING NOW BEFORE ANYONE MAKES A MOTION, BECAUSE I WAS GONNA JUMP TO IT FIRST.
UH, I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS AND IF THERE'S A SECOND, I'M GOING TO TELL YOU WHAT SECOND, THERE'S A SECOND THAT I HAVE A SECOND FROM BOARD MEMBER VAN NOLAN.
SO FOR THE NEW MEMBERS ON THE BOARD, WE'VE SEEN SIMILAR CASES TO THIS SEVERAL TIMES IN THE PAST.
AND MY ARGUMENT, AND IT'S THE BEST ARGUMENT I THINK SO FAR, IS THAT THIS IS REALLY VERY MUCH IN LINE WITH IMAGINE AUSTIN'S ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN.
SO WE'RE LOOKING TO HAVE A ZERO CARBON GO BY 2050, RIGHT? THESE STYLES OF SERVICE STATION ARE DESIGNED TO KEEP PEOPLE FROM SITTING IN THEIR CARS WHILE THEY'RE RUNNING IN 104 DEGREE WEATHER, WAITING TO FIND A SPOT TO QUEUE UP TO THEIR GAS PUMP AND GET SOME GAS NOW UNTIL WE GET EVERYBODY ON ELECTRIC OR HYDROGEN OR WHATEVER NEW FUEL CELL COMES OUT THAT I CAN REALLY, REALLY HOPE FOR.
AND THE WAY I HAD HOPED TO RESOLVE THIS WAS BY GETTING THE TRANSPORTATION CRITERIA MANUAL UPDATED THROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION.
SO AS I'M MAKING THIS MOTION, IT WOULD BE WITH THE, THE, THE PROMISE THAT I WILL AGAIN, UH, TAKE THIS TO PLANNING COMMISSION, SEE IF, UH, I'LL GET A SPONSOR AND I WILL SEE IF MAYBE WE CAN GET THE CHANGES, UH, FROM THESE THESE.
AND IT'S A VERY SPECIFIC TYPE OF ASK FOR THESE GAS STATION CHANGES.
AND MAYBE WE COULD SEE IF WE CAN GET THE TRANSPORTATION CRITERIA MANUAL UPDATED.
SO, UH, BOARD MEMBER VAN OLAN, IT WAS ALMOST WHEN I SAW THIS AND HAVING KNOWN WHAT WE WENT THROUGH, UH, BACK AND THERE'S BEEN A COUPLE MORE UP THERE THAT I SAW THAT WE, WE VOTED ON AS WELL AND HAVE WHAT WE WENT THROUGH AND HOPING THAT CODE X WAS GONNA TAKE CARE OF IT.
AND I WAS ALMOST HOPING THIS WOULD'VE BEEN AN INTERPRETATION HEARING SO THAT WE COULD PUT OUR INTERPRETATION ON THIS AND PUT MAKE IT, THAT'S THE ONLY WAY BASICALLY THAT THIS BODY CAN ACTUALLY MAKE, UH, A ZONING A PERMANENT CHANGE.
BUT, UM, UH, HAVING UH, SAID THAT, UH, I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO SECOND YOUR MOTION.
UH, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS? I THINK, UM, I WOULD JUST ADD I THINK IT'S A REALLY REASONABLE ASK AND I DON'T THINK IT MAKES SENSE.
THEN LET'S GO AHEAD AND FINDINGS REASONABLE
[00:40:01]
USE.THE ZONING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY DO NOT ALLOW FOR REASONABLE USE BECAUSE MODERN SERVICE STATION DESIGNS UTILIZE THE RACETRACK SINGLE PUMP LAYOUT FOR MAXIMUM VEHICLE AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND ACCESSIBILITY.
BOTH THE TRANSPORTATION CRITERIA MANUAL AND CODE SECTION 25 2 8 14 ARE OUTDATED AND SHOULD BE UPDATED TO BE MORE IN LINE WITH SAFER ONSITE MANEUVERING.
AND I WOULD ADD TO BE IN LINE WITH AUSTIN'S ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS TO BE CARBON FREE BY 2050 HARDSHIP.
THE HARDSHIP FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS REQUEST IS UNIQUE IN THE PROPERTY IN THAT THE SIZE AND CONFIGURATION OF THE PROPERTY DOES NOT ALLOW FOR ADEQUATE ROOM TO DESIGN THE PROPOSED SERVICE STATION WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN'S ACCEPTED DOUBLE STACK DESIGN WHILE MAINTAINING THE ADEQUATE MANEUVERING AND QUEUING SPACE REQUIRED FOR SERVICE STATIONS BY THE TRANSPORTATION CRITERIA MANUAL, SPECIFICALLY THE THROAT LENGTH OF THE DRIVEWAY ON EVA STREET, AS WELL AS THE REQUIRED DETENTION LIMIT.
SHIFTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NORTH END PORTION OF THE SITE, THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE SITE CONSTRAINED BY AN OXYGEN ENERGY EASEMENT THAT CANNOT BE ENCROACHED UPON HARDSHIP IS NOT GENERAL TO THE AREA IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED BECAUSE THE RAISE TRACK SINGLE FUELING PUMP CONFIGURATION IS CONSIDERED STANDARD.
OUR PRODUCT TYPICAL AMONG MOST MAJOR FUELING STATIONS TODAY AND IS THE PREFERRED PRODUCT FOR VEHICLE ACCESSIBILITY AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AREA CHARACTER.
THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY, UH, WILL NOT IMPAIR THE USE OF ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY AND WILL NOT IMPAIR THE PURPOSE OF THE REGULATIONS OF THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED BECAUSE THE VARIANCE RESULT IN ONLY 12 DISPENSERS BEING CONSTRUCTED, WHICH IS ONLY 75% OF THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF DISCI DISPENSERS ALLOWED BY CITY CODE.
AND I THINK WE CAN BE GOOD WITH THAT.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND CALL THE VOTE.
OH, UH, BEFORE YOU RUN OFF, WOULD YOU BE OKAY IF I USED YOUR PRESENTATION TO SHOW TWO PLANNING COMMISSION, UH, WHEN I BRING THIS UP? 'CAUSE I REALLY WANTED TO GET THE T TC I'M UPDATED ON THIS.
I I THINK I CAN GET IT THROUGH CODES AND ORDINANCES.
I JUST NEED A GOOD THING TO PUT IN FRONT OF YOU MIGHT, YOU MIGHT HAVE TO TAKE IT TO URBAN TRANS.
YEAH, I MEAN WE'RE, WE'RE VERY LIMITED WITH WHAT WE CAN DO WITH PC.
THAT'S THE PROBLEM I'VE BEEN RUNNING INTO EITHER, BUT IF I CAN BRING THEM SOMETHING ITS 20 SPECIFICALLY WITH ZONING, RIGHT? WELL, IT'S 25 10 AND IT'S A AND IT'S A FIGURE IN THE TRANSPORTATION CRITERIA MANUAL.
SO I ACTUALLY THINK YOU MIGHT HAVE TO URBAN TRANS.
I ACTUALLY THINK IT MIGHT BE MORE OF, UH, LIKE A, SOMETHING THAT HAS TO GO TO COUNCIL.
IF YOU'RE GONNA CHANGE THE CRITERIA MANUAL.
THAT'S WHAT I COULD'VE THOUGHT TOO.
THE ARE UNDER REVIEW RIGHT NOW WITH A, WITH A GROUP OF PEOPLE GIVING INPUT, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT THE TRANSPORTATION CRITERIA MANUAL.
SO IT MIGHT BE, IT IT'S ACTUALLY BOTH AS TRANSPORTATION CRITERIA MANUAL AND 25 2 AND 25 2.
SO IT'S A CODE AMENDMENT FOR THE 25 2.
SO I COULD DO THAT THROUGH CODES AND ORDINANCES.
BUT BUT THEN THE, WITH THE TCM, HOW DO WE TIE THE TREAT? THEY JUST RO THAT'S THE PART TO FIGURE OUT.
AND THIS WAS AN ITEM AS WELL AS, UH, THE OTHER THING THAT IN THE TCM THAT I DON'T THINK THEY CARRIED FORWARD WAS THE, UM, THE NON-CONFORMING GETTING ELAINE'S COMING.
ARE WE GETTING SCOUTS FROM LEGAL? BECAUSE IT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA.
NO, BUT NO, I I DO THINK PROBABLY SHOULD STOP THE, I SHOULDN'T PUT, I SHOULD, I THINK.
I THINK THAT THAT, THAT THE VARIANCE CASE HAS BEEN WRAPPED.
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS, HOWEVER, WE'RE NOT POSTED ON THE AGENDA FOR THIS ITEM.
SO THEREFORE, SO I JUST GOT IN TROUBLE.
SEE, I'M GONNA TAKE A QUICK POINT OF PRIVILEGE AS CHAIR TO, TO DISCUSS WHAT JUST HAPPENED.
I KNOW THAT ONE OF Y'ALL HAD A QUESTION.
AND THE REASON THAT YOU CAN'T ASK THE BOARD QUESTIONS IS BECAUSE WE ARE A QUASI-JUDICIAL BOARD MANDATED BY THE STATE OF TEXAS TO GRANT VARIANCES AND SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS TO A MUNICIPAL LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
THAT MEANS, MEANS WE'RE ESSENTIALLY JUDGES AND ANYTHING WE SING AND DO HERE CAN BE USED AGAINST US IN DISTRICT COURT.
AND THE LAWYER REALLY DOESN'T WANT ME TO SAY THIS, BUT I'M GONNA, I'M SORRY CHAIR TO INTERRUPT, BUT I PLEASE KEEP QUESTION UNDER COASTED TO THE AGENDA.
IT'S FINE, NOT IT'S, WE'RE GONNA DO IT UNDER FUTURE AND OH, YOU KNOW WHAT ITEM? WE'LL MEET YOU AFTER.
I'M GONNA SQUEEZE Y'ALL IN SOMETHING.
OH, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTIVITY.
[00:45:01]
HAVE QUESTIONS.UH, ALSO, I WAS TRYING TO BUY TIME BECAUSE THIS BRINGS US BACK TO RIGHT.
IT'S NOT A LOT OF TIME FOR THEM TO HAVE MET AND COVERED.
I KNOW WE'RE GONNA HAVE, I'M PRETTY SURE WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO VOTE ON THE POSTPONEMENT.
SO THIS IS GOING TO TAKE US BACK TO, ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW WHAT, I'LL TELL YOU WHAT I, SO HEY, ABOUT FIVE MINUTES.
WHY DON'T WE TAKE A FIVE MINUTE RECESS.
OTHER, WE'RE GONNA DO FIVE MINUTE RECESS.
EVERYBODY LET ME GO CHAT WITH, WELL NOT CHAT.
I WILL ASK ELAINE TO GO CHAT WITH HIM.
MAKE IT 10, 10, 10 MINUTE RECESS.
WELL, YOU WILL READ ADJOURN AT SIX 30.
THAT WAS THE QUICKEST BREAK YOU HAD.
WE WERE ABOUT TO TAKE A 10 MINUTE BREAK.
WE'RE GONNA TAKE A 10 MINUTE BREAK 'CAUSE WE THOUGHT YOU MIGHT NEED A LITTLE MORE TIME.
I GOT AND SO WE DON'T HAVE EVERYBODY ON THE REMOTE THAT WE WOULD NEED TO ACTUALLY CONDUCT BUSINESS.
SO WE'LL BE BACK IN 10 MINUTES.
I HEREBY CALL THE MEETING BACK TO ORDER.
IS THAT EVERYBODY? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.
[6. C15-2024-0034 Robert Allison for Brad Hoskins 705 Brownlee Circle (Part 3 of 3)]
RIGHT.SO WE ARE GOING TO TAKE ITEM SIX UP FROM THE TABLE.
AND BECAUSE THERE WAS AN ASK FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR A POSTPONEMENT, I THINK WE SHOULD PROBABLY START THERE TO SEE IF THAT ASK STILL EXISTS BEFORE WE MAKE ANY MOTIONS.
SO THERE IS NO LONGER AN ASK TO POSTPONE FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO IF I COULD HAVE THE APPLICANT STEP UP TO THE PODIUM.
STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
WE'LL HAVE, UH, YOUR PRESENTATION PULLED UP.
AND YOU WILL HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
UH, THANK YOU, UH, BOARD MEMBERS.
THANK YOU MAUREEN, ON THE BEHALF OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO WE THINK OUR CASE IS QUITE SIMPLE.
SORRY, COULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE, SORRY.
MY NAME IS DAVID WEBER FROM WEBER STUDIO ARCHITECTS.
WE THINK OUR CASE IS QUITE SIMPLE.
WE CURRENTLY HAVE AN MF THREE ZONING ON THE SITE AS IT EXISTS TODAY.
AND OUR IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMITATIONS.
UH, AS THE BUILDING IS DESIGNED, WE MEET OUR IMPERVIOUS COVER LI IMPERVIOUS COVER LIMITATIONS AND OUR MAXIMUM UNIT OR ALL OF OUR UNIT SIZES AS THEY'RE ALLOWED, UH, AS WE ARE ALLOWED TO TO TODAY.
SO CURRENTLY WE HAVE A DESIGN THAT MEETS ALL REQUIREMENTS.
HOWEVER, IT'S THREE UNITS AND IT'S AN MF THREE ZONING.
WHEN OUR CLIENTS SOUGHT THIS ZONING TWO YEARS AGO AND WORKED VERY HARD TO ATTAIN IT THROUGH A LOT OF STRUGGLE, THEY ULTIMATELY GOT THE MF THREE ZONING 'CAUSE IT WAS THE ONLY ZONING AT THE TIME THAT PERMITTED THREE UNITS.
UM, SO WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH OUR CLIENTS FOR OVER A YEAR ON THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THEIR THREE UNIT HOUSE.
UM, AND ALONG CAME HOME THE HOME ORDINANCE, WHICH NOW ALLOWS THREE UNITS.
AND SO WE WERE ALL THRILLED ABOUT THAT, BUT THEY HAD JUST GONE THROUGH THIS LONG PROCESS TO GET THE MF THREE.
IN THE END, WE'RE ACTUALLY NOT NEEDING MUCH OF WHAT THE MF THREE ZONING, UH, PROVIDES EXCEPT FOR IMPERVIOUS COVER AND THE, UH, MAXIMUM UNIT SIZE.
SO AS YOU KNOW, THE HOME ORDINANCE REQUIRES THAT THE MAXIMUM UNIT SIZE IS 0.4 FAR AND UH, THE MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS COVER IS 0.45.
HOWEVER, THE MF THREE ZONING WE CURRENTLY HAVE ON THE SITE ALLOWS FOR A 0.65 IMPERVIOUS COVER, WHICH OUR CLIENTS ABSOLUTELY NEED BECAUSE THERE'S AN EXISTING DUPLEX ON THE SITE AROUND WHICH WE HAVE TO BRING A LARGE VAN THAT CARRIES OUR CLIENTS AND THEIR SON, WHO IS ESSENTIALLY CONFINED TO A ORTHOPEDIC WE WHEELCHAIR FOR ALL OF HIS, UH, EVERY DAY ALL DAY.
SO IN ORDER TO HAVE THE MANEUVERABILITY FOR THE LARGE CAR THAT HOLDS THAT WHEELCHAIR AND FOR THE, AND FOR THE MANEUVERABILITY IN AND AROUND THAT CAR, AND THEN ALSO, UH, IT, IT REQUIRES US TO NEED THE FULL IMPERVIOUS COVER THAT MF THREE ALLOWS TODAY.
SO, UM, IN ADDITION, THE MAIN UNIT OF THE HOUSE, BECAUSE IT'S GOT AN ELEVATOR ON MULTIPLE FLOORS AND THE ASSOCIATED, UH, NAVIGATION OR OR MANEUVERABILITY SPACE REQUIRED TO ACTUALLY HAVE THE ELEVATOR AND MANEUVER IN AND OUT OF IT, IT THAT ADDS UP TO THAT PLUS A LITTLE BIT OF
[00:50:01]
EXTRA MANEUVERABILITY THAT WE NATURALLY NEED TO HAVE THE WHEELCHAIR THROUGHOUT THE HOUSE.ALL OF THAT ADDS UP TO A, A FLOOR AREA RATIO LIMIT FOR THE MAIN UNIT BEING ABOVE WHAT THE HOME ORDINANCE NOW STATES.
SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR THOSE TWO VARIANCES.
UM, IF WE'RE ZONED AS IF WE USE AN SF THREE USE.
SO WE ARE IN A SITUATION WHERE WE DON'T HAVE TO REQUEST AN SF THREE USE, BUT WE'D LIKE TO BECAUSE OUR OWN, OUR, MY CLIENTS, THE HOMEOWNERS, THEY FEEL LIKE IT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL AS THEIR OWN INTEREST TO KEEP THE, THE QUALITY OF THE PROJECT, MORE RESIDENTIAL IN NATURE AND MORE OF A SCALE THAT WORKS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE ACTUALLY, IS TO SIMPLIFY THE PROJECT, MAKE IT FEEL MORE LIKE AN SF THREE USE, ODDLY ENOUGH, BECAUSE THE, WHEN THE HOME ORDINANCE CAME ABOUT IN DECEMBER, THE CITY ALSO REDEFINED MF PROPERTIES AS BEING A MINIMUM OF FOUR UNITS, WHICH NOW MEANS OUR CLIENTS HAVE GONE THROUGH ALL THIS EFFORT TO GET THE SF THE MF THREE ZONING THAT PERMITTED THEM TO HAVE THE THREE, THE THIRD UNIT.
AND NOW THE VERY ZONING THAT THEY WORKED SO HARD TO GET APPEARS TO HAVE ALMOST REQUIRE THEM TO HAVE TO HAVE A FOURTH UNIT TO BE ABLE TO COMPLY WITH THAT, WHICH THEY DO NOT NEED NOR WANT.
SO ULTIMATELY WE LOOK, WE APPEAR TO BE IN A SPOT WHERE WE'RE EITHER ABOUT TO HAVE TO ADD A FOURTH UNIT THAT NONE OF US WANT, NEITHER OUR CLIENT, MY CLIENTS OR THE NEIGHBORHOOD, OR, UH, WE MIGHT BE ASKED TO TO REZONE TO AN SF THREE, BUT WE WOULD STILL FOLLOW, HAVE TO FOLLOW THAT UP WITH A ZONING REQUEST.
UH, OR SORRY, A UH, UH, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REQUEST FOR IMPERVIOUS COVER AND THE MAXIMUM UNIT SIZE, BOTH OF WHICH WE TODAY COMPLY WITH.
SO THAT'S THE NATURE OF OUR REQUEST.
UM, AND I'M A LITTLE DISCOMBOBULATED BECAUSE OF THE POSTPONEMENT
AND THAT OF THE ONLY TWO PARTS OF THE MF THREE CODE THAT WE WANT TO CARRY WITH THAT USE ARE THE IMPERVIOUS COVER THAT ALREADY EXISTS ON THE SITE TODAY.
THE IMPERVIOUS COVER ALLOWANCE AND THE UNIT SIZE FOR THE MAIN UNIT.
I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS IF I'M SURE YOU MIGHT HAVE SOME 'CAUSE IT'S KIND OF CONFUSING.
IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION? OKAY.
THINK, OH, UH, GIVE HER A OKAY.
GIVE HER AN OPPORTUNITY TO STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
YOU'LL HAVE, IT'S NOT REALLY OPPOSITION.
UM, JUST TO KIND OF CLARIFY, SO YOU ALL HAVE THE INFORMATION FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, MAUREEN MATOYER SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF ANA.
SO BASICALLY THAT ESSENTIALLY WHAT, WHAT THE QUESTIONS WERE FROM THE NEARBY NEIGHBORS AND THE ZONING COMMITTEE FOR THE OLD WEST AUSTIN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION WAS TO CONFIRM WHICH WE COULD NOT GET FROM CITY STAFF, THAT IF THIS VARIANCE IS, IS, UM, GRANTED TONIGHT THAT IT IS TIED TO AND WILL FOLLOW SF THREE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS CONSISTENT WITH AN SF THREE USE, WHICH MR. WEBER JUST DESCRIBED.
UM, I THINK THAT THAT WAS MA THE MAJOR KIND OF QUESTION MARK THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAD.
UM, IF, IF THAT IS THE INTENT AND THAT IS THE GOAL AND THAT IS HOW THE SITE WILL BE DEVELOPED WITH A MAXIMUM HEIGHT UNDER THE SF THREE.
UM, THE NEIGHBORHOOD DOES NOT OPPOSE THE VARIANCE REQUEST.
HOWEVER, IN FUTURE, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE A LOT OF QUESTIONS AROUND HOW HOME ORDINANCE IS GONNA BE IMPLEMENTED.
IT WOULD BE MOST HELPFUL IF CITY STAFF CAN RESPOND TO SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS IN THE ABSENCE OF A PERMIT CASE.
SO I DON'T KNOW WHO IN IN THE DEPARTMENT CAN, CAN DO THAT, BUT I THINK THERE, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE MORE AND MORE OF THESE CASES COMING UP WITH THIS THIRD UNIT AND THE NEW REGULATIONS BECAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE WERE UNAWARE OF HOW MF WAS AFFECTED IN THAT.
YOU'LL HAVE TWO MINUTES IF YOU WANT TO OFFER I GUESS A QUASI REBUTTAL.
I REALLY APPRECIATE WE TRIED, WE HAVE BEEN IN TOUCH WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR THE LAST WEEK, UH, WEEK AND A HALF.
IT TURNS OUT MELISSA, UH, I THINK WHAT YOU JUST SAID, UH, ABOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THEY HAVE 10 DAYS BEFORE THEY GET THE DOCUMENT.
IT SEEMS LIKE IT WAS RIGHT BEFORE THE HEARING.
SO THEY THERE, WE REALLY, EVERYBODY JUMPED ON IT IMMEDIATELY AND WE HAD A LOT OF EMAILS AND TEXTS AND PHONE CALLS AND STILL AT THE END OF THE DAY, I THINK THAT PEOPLE WERE TALKING ABOUT THINGS THAT WERE NOT RELATED TO WHAT OTHER PEOPLE WERE TALKING ABOUT AND MAUREEN AND WE STOOD OUTSIDE AND TALKED THROUGH IT
[00:55:01]
AND THE DETAILS OF IT AND VERY, I THINK FAIRLY PROMPTLY GOT THEM TO RECOGNIZE THAT WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO, WE THINK IS IN THE SAME, IN UH, SAME INTEREST AS WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO.I THINK IT'S HARD 'CAUSE YOU GET THE NOTICE AND IT DOESN'T REALLY SAY A LOT AND IT DOESN'T LIKE HAVE A PRETTY PICTURE OR ANYTHING.
WE COULD, WE COULD TALK ABOUT THAT FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. I'VE PUT IT ON THE LIST.
BUT FOR NOW, LET'S GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND OPEN IT UP TO QUESTIONS AND WE'LL START WITH BOARD MEMBER BON OLIN SINCE HE HAD HIS HAND RAISED.
I HAVE A FEW COMMENTS AND I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION.
UM, FIRST OF ALL, I APPRECIATE YOU GUYS GETTING TOGETHER.
'CAUSE UH, AT THE VERY BEGINNING AGAIN, SIR, WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR FAR AND IMPERVIOUS COVER, IT'S LIKE PULLING HENCE TEETH.
IT'S, THOSE ARE, THOSE ARE LIKE SACROSANCT.
DO YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? THEY'RE REALLY HARD TO GET.
MY MOTION I'M GONNA MAKE IS I'M GONNA MAKE A, MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
UH, I DO UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM AND ALSO IN THESE TYPE OF SITUATIONS, UH, IT NORMALLY WE WOULD REQUEST THAT YOU GO BACK TO AND GET TOGETHER WITH THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION BECAUSE FAR AND IMPERVIOUS COVERS HAS LARGE IMPACTS ON, ON THE, UH, AREA CHARACTER AND SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.
UM, HAVING, UH, WATCH YOU GUYS WORK THIS THROUGH.
AND, AND THANK YOU ALSO FOR BEING OPEN-MINDED AND GETTING, GETTING A MORE CLEARER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO UH, UH, ACCOMPLISH HERE.
I FEEL LIKE IT'S NOT THAT, UH, OF AN UNREASONABLE ASK.
I'M SORRY THAT YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS TYPE OF, UH, CONFUSION.
WE'RE GONNA PROBABLY END UP WITH A LOT OF INTERPRETATIONS AND SOMEWHAT FINESSING THE ZONING ORDINANCES BY INTERPRETATION AND BY BY VARIANCES.
NOW THIS VARIANCE WILL CARRY ONLY WITH YOUR PROPERTY.
IT DOESN'T SET A PRECEDENT FOR OTHER PROPERTIES.
AND I I I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT 'CAUSE WHEN PEOPLE SEE US PASS SOMETHING FOR IMPERVIOUS COVER OR FOR A FAR THEY THINK OH GAME ON.
WE CAN GO IN AND ASK FOR IT TOO.
SO, BUT THE OUR VARIANCES DO MO GO ONLY TO YOUR SPECIFIC PROPERTY.
I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
SECOND WE'LL HAVE A SUFFICIENT, I HAVE A QUESTION.
UM, IS THAT A BOARD MEMBER STAN? YES, GO AHEAD.
UM, SO I JUST WANNA CLARIFY, THE APPLICATION IS STILL STATING THAT THEIR ZONING IS MF THREE.
DO WE WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO CHANGE THAT.
ALL WE CAN DO IS GRANT THE VARIANCE.
THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO BUY SO THAT WOULDN'T THE VARIANCE THAT WE'RE GRANTING BE ACTUALLY BE THE NEED FOR FOUR UNITS? BECAUSE UNDER MF THREE DOESN'T HE ALREADY HAVE THE 0.6? LIKE THE VARIANCE, THE REQUEST FOR VARIANCE THAT'S LISTED IS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, IMPERVIOUS COVER AND EVERYTHING.
BUT UNDER MF THREE, HE ALREADY HAS ALL OF THAT.
ISN'T THE PART THAT HE IS NOT COMPLYING WITH JUST THE FOUR UNITS? WELL, WHAT WE CAN DO, CORRECT ME, UH, LEGAL, BUT WHAT WE CAN DO IS WE CAN ALSO PUT, WE CAN PUT AN AMENDMENT ON THERE THAT IT'S UH, IT'S A CONDITION.
WE DO THAT IF YOU WERE GOING TO DO ANYWAYS.
SO THE VARIANCE IS FOR THE UNIT NUMBER AND THEN THE CONDITION IS THAT, BUT THAT'S NOT HOW THEY CAN FIND EVERY OTHER WAY WITH SF THREE SOUNDING REQUIREMENTS.
WE CAN'T DO THAT BECAUSE THAT'S NOT HOW IT WAS NOTICED.
THAT'S NOT THE CURRENT, IT'S NOT HOW IT POSTED.
WERE YOU NOTICE FOR THAT, WOULDN'T WE? NO.
DO YOU HAVE A UH, NO SIR ME HAND UP? DO YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION? SO, AND I PROBABLY NEED TO ASK STAFF A QUESTION.
SO ELAINE, PRIOR TO THE HOME ORDINANCE THERE WAS A UH, INTERPRETATION OR IF YOU WERE BUILDING IN A RESIDENTIAL PROJECT, EVEN IF YOU WERE A ZONED MF THREE, WHICH IS COMMON IN OLD WEST AUSTIN ACTUALLY TO HAVE SOME MF ZONING SPRINKLED IN.
BUT IF YOU WERE A RESIDENCE THERE WAS THE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL SECTION, YOU KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT ELAINE? YEAH.
THAT REVERTED BACK TO SF THREE.
SO IS THAT WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY DOING HERE OR DID HOME ALTER THAT? I AM NOT SURE 'CAUSE I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE HOME AMENDMENTS.
I MADE SURE TO NOTIFY THE APPLICANT THAT THEY NEEDED TO SPEAK WITH RESIDENTIAL REVIEW FIRST BEFORE THEY CAME TO US TO MAKE SURE THEY WERE REQUESTING THE CORRECT VARIANCES AND LEGAL ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
SO LET ME GIVE YOU THE SECTION.
IT'S GONNA TAKE ME JUST A SECOND THOUGH.
IT'S THE MS. LOPEZ, DO YOU HAVE AN ANSWER? MAYBE I, I'M SURE IF THE CASE WAS NOTICED FOR THE RIGHT VARIANT.
THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I'M TO WONDER NOW.
SECTION SECTION IT MIGHT BE THAT'S GIMME,
[01:00:01]
UNLESS THEY ALTERED THIS SECTION, I HAVEN'T REALLY LOOKED AT WHAT THEY CODIFIED AND THE HOME ORDINANCE IS NOT, NO OFFENSE TO ANYONE, BUT IT'S NOT REALLY THE MOST WELL WRITTEN, UM, EXPERIENCE THAT I'VE HAD.I'M SORRY IT'S TAKEN ME LONGER 'CAUSE I HAVE TO SCROLL THROUGH WAY TOO MUCH STUFF IS THE TWO ASKS ARE THE IC INCREASE FROM 0.45 TO 0.65 AND THEN LIMITING, OR THEY'RE REQUESTING FAR FOR ONE UNIT FROM POINT 40 TO POINT 50.4 TO 0.5.
I THOUGHT IT USED TO BE IN THE 500 RANGE WHERE THEY WOULD REVIEW A MULTIFAMILY SITE UNDER THE SF REGULATIONS EVEN THOUGH IT HAD THE MULTIFAMILY SITE, EVEN THOUGH IT HAD THE MUL MULTIFAMILY DESIGNATION BECAUSE IT WAS, IT ACTUALLY WAS QUITE COMMON, PARTICULARLY IN OLD WEST AUSTIN TO HAVE THIS LITTLE SPRINKLING OF MF TWO USUALLY.
WELL I'M I'M WONDERING ALSO IF WE'RE IN A, LIKE A BIT OF A, IF NOT A WEIRD SPOT BECAUSE THEY WENT THROUGH THIS ENTIRE ZONING PROCESS AND IT WAS A LONG ZONING PROCESS.
UH, ONLY TO HAVE THE LAW CHANGE ON THEM.
TO WHERE NOW THEY WOULD ONLY NEED THE, THE FAR AND IC.
BUT THEN THEY'RE STUCK WITH MULTIFAMILY, WHICH IS NOT REALLY WHAT THEY WANTED.
IT'S JUST WHAT THEY HAD TO HAVE IN ORDER TO GET TO WHERE THEY WERE GOING.
I THINK IF WE CONDITION IT, WE WE CAN ON YEAH, I'M CONCERNED BECAUSE THE THREE UNITS I I'M CONCERNED IT WOULD ONLY BE CONDITIONS ALL THE TIME, DON'T WE? IT WOULD ONLY BE FOR THIS PROPERTY.
BUT WE'RE NOT NOTICED FOR THE FOURTH UNIT.
YEAH, I UM, BOARD MEMBER LIN, I'M, MY CONCERN IS THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY NOT NOTICED FOR THE CORRECT SECTION OF CODE.
COULD MY, COULD MY, EXCUSE ME.
COULD MY CONDITION SIMPLY STATE THAT IT WOULD BE LIMITED TO THREE UNITS AND NOT REALLY ADDRESS THAT PARTICULAR CODE SECTION? I DON'T.
SO I THINK THAT IS A MOTION THAT THE BOARD MAY BE ABLE TO CONSIDER IF IT WAS NOTICED FOR A DIFFERENT PROVISION OF CODE.
'CAUSE IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE CASE RIGHT NOW IS FOR 25 2 7 7 3, WHICH IS THE, UM, TWO UNIT, THREE UNIT RESIDENTIAL USE.
UH, AND IF THEIR PROPERTY IS ZONED MF THREE, THAT'S A DIFFERENT SECTION OF CODE.
SO I THINK, UM, GIVEN THE UNCERTAINTY RIGHT NOW, IT MAY BE BEST TO POSTPONE THE CASE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE NOTICED THE CASE, UM, CORRECTLY AND AND ENSURE THAT UH, THEY HAVE WELL IF THAT'S OUR ONLY OPTION, THEN I'M WILLING TO MOVE FORWARD.
AND THE, I SEE THE HO THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION NODDING THEIR HEAD.
I'M WILLING TO MOVE FORWARD AND TAKE IT IN GOOD FAITH THAT THE GENTLEMAN IS, WHAT HE'S SAYING, TELLING US IS TRUE AND HE'S JUST GONNA DO THROUGH UNITS.
AND I MEAN, IT'S, I'M THERE WITH IT, THIS BOARD MEMBER VANILLA, I, I'M NOT SURE THAT THE BOARD IS NOTICED TO DO THAT TYPE OF ACTION IF I PASS THIS.
NO, WHAT I'M SAYING IS IF I PASS THIS AS IT IS WRITTEN HERE TODAY, I DON'T THINK YOU CAN, UNLESS I I DON'T THINK I'M, I'M ON BOARD WITH THAT.
I, I'M NOT SURE IF THE, THE, THE ZONING, THE USE IS PERMITTED IN THAT ZONING CATEGORY.
GIVE ME, UH, I'M GONNA GIVE HER A COUPLE MINUTES, SO SORRY.
NO, LET ME GET SOME, IF NOT, I'M GONNA BULL DOG.
THERE'S CURRENTLY A DUPLEX ON THIS SIDE, RIGHT? YES.
BECAUSE 25 2 7 7 3 SPECIFICALLY FOR DUPLEX USE.
SO THIS IS JUST KIND OF LIKE MASHING HOME AND DUPLEX USE TOGETHER.
WELL, WE GOT A, I IF I CAN'T FIND THIS CODE SECTION, WE'LL TAKE YOUR TIME.
I THINK I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR TOO.
I JUST DON'T REMEMBER WHERE IT'S AT.
IT'S THE ADDITIONAL, LIKE ADDITIONAL, BUT AGAIN, THAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH A PART ONE AND A PART TWO AND THEN REWRITE THIS AND NOT THAT IT, IT NEEDED TO BE LOOKED AT AT A HOLISTIC MANNER.
[01:05:04]
CODE ISELAINE DID RE RESIDENTIAL REVIEW SAY THIS WAS 25 2 7 7 3 OR I, I DON'T KNOW.
THAT'S UP TO THE APPLICANT TO SPEAK WITH THEM.
I TELL ALL APPLICANTS, MAKE SURE YOU SPEAK WITH RESIDENTIAL ZONING REVIEW BEFORE Y'ALL COME TO US KNOWING WHAT ZONE, WHAT, UH, VARIANCES YOU NEED.
SO EVERYBODY SHOULD BE AWARE OF THAT, THAT OH, I CAN'T, UM, WHAT ZONING, WHAT THEY NEED TO REQUEST A VARIANCE FROM, FROM THE ZONING SECTION.
'CAUSE I'M NOT A PLAN REVIEWER.
THAT IS RESIDENTIAL ZONING REVIEW.
AND THEY SHOULD BEGIN THE PROCESS WITH RESIDENTIAL ZONING REVIEW.
I CAN'T MAKE THEM, BUT THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE, YEAH.
UH, BOARD MEMBER MEMBER BOWEN HAS A YES THINK BOARD MEMBER.
BOWEN, YOU HAVE A QUESTION? YEAH, WELL IT'S KIND OF A WHAT SAYS HE HAS TO BUILD THE FOURTH UNIT? DOES EDWARD NO, NO, NO, THAT'S FAIR.
UH, JEFFREY, MR. BOND, THAT'S WHAT THAT, THAT'S WHERE I WAS GOING.
HE DOESN'T HAVE, WELL, AND I REALIZE THAT THIS, THAT THIS, THIS VARIANCE WOULD GO WITH THE PROPERTY, BUT THAT DOESN'T STOP OTHERS FROM COMING TO US FOR SIMILAR THINGS AND THEN HAVING TO EXPLAIN TO THEM, NO, THAT'S ONLY FOR THIS.
AND I REALIZE THAT WE'RE TAKING INTO ACCOUNT SOME TYPE OF HANDICAP PROVISIONS, BUT IT, UH, IT REALLY SEEMS TO BE GETTING KIND OF CONVOLUTED BETWEEN WE'RE GONNA GO SF THE SF THREE REMARKS VERSUS THE MF MARK REMARKS.
AND IF HE DOESN'T FILL THE FOURTH UNIT, WHAT ARE THEY GONNA DO? THEY AWAY HIS BIRTHDAY? I MEAN, COME ON
YEAH, I WOULD, I WOULD AGREE IN THE, THE 7, 7 3 DOES APPLY TO THREE UNIT AND THREE UNIT STRUCTURE.
I MEAN, I, MOVING FORWARD, I'M WITH YOU AND MY MOTION IS ACTUALLY GONNA BE BASED UPON, AND WE HAVE DONE THIS IN THE PAST BASED UPON ABOUT THE SAFETY ISSUE.
I THINK WE HAVE DONE SOMETHING SIMILAR.
I JUST DON'T WANT IT TO COME BACK AND HAUNT US FOR SOME REASON.
NOT THAT IT, THAT IT MATTERS TO, TO SOME EXTENT, BUT WE'RE GONNA END UP WITH MORE AND MORE OF THESE.
BECAUSE OF HOME ONE AND TWO AND THE LACK OF CLARIFICATION OR LET ME SAY THE LACK OF CLARITY IN WHAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN.
BUT I, I THINK THIS ONE QUALIFIES BECAUSE THE DUPLEX IS THERE ALREADY.
IT, IT EVERYTHING IT'S ASKING FOR.
AND THIS WOULD BE ADDING JUST AN ADDITIONAL MADAME CHAIR.
YOU GOT LIKE A TRIPEX ON THIS.
I'M, MY MOTION IS NOT WELL GO AHEAD MELISSA.
ARE YOU READY? MY MOTION IS NOT BASED UPON WHETHER IT'S, UH, WHETHER IT IS, UH, 25 2 7 73, WHETHER IT'S SF THREE, MF THREE, OR WHAT, WHATEVER.
IT'S, MY MOTION IS BASED UPON THE REASONABLE USE AND ACCESSIBILITY IN HEALTH AND SAFETY OF INGRESS AND EGRESS.
WE HAVE PASSED VARIANCES IN THE PAST BASED UPON HEALTH AND SAFETY, WHETHER IT, IT DEALS WITH A FENCE OR SWIMMING POOL, WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE.
AND WHAT I'VE READ AFTER GOING THROUGH THIS ENTIRE PACKET AGAIN, IS THAT THIS IS A PRIMARILY HEALTH AND SAFETY REMODELING PROJECT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS.
AND THAT'S WHERE SOME OF THE, THE, THE FAR IS REQUIRED.
I ALSO SEE WHERE THEY'RE MINIMIZING THE IMPACT TO IT, BECAUSE THEY'RE GONNA BE UTILIZING THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY THAT THEY HAVE INSIDE.
THEY'RE NOT GONNA BE ADDING ANYTHING ELSE OUTSIDE THAT'S GONNA, THAT'S GONNA INCREASE THE NON-COMPLIANCE.
SO IF YOU LOOK AT 25 2 7 71, 7 71 SAYS THAT, THAT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE IN A MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICT MUST COMPLY WITH THE SITE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR, UH, FAMILY RESIDENCE SF THREE DISTRICT PRESCRIBED BY 25 2 4 92.
SO IN 7 71, IT TAKES YOU TO 4 92.
4 92 GIVES YOU THE 45% AND THE FAR AND THE HEIGHT.
BUT WE'RE NOT, BUT WE'RE LOOKING AT, THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'VE NOTICED.
SO WE HAVE TO DECIDE WHETHER 7 7 3 IS SUFFICIENT.
AND I, I WOULD SAY IT IS AND WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT.
BUT, SO I THINK HE'S NOTICED CORRECTLY BECAUSE OF 7 7 1, WHICH POINTS YOU BACK TO, WHICH SAYS IF YOU'RE A SINGLE FAMILY USE, WHICH IS SOMETHING THEY SHOULD HAVE FIXED WHEN THEY DID HOME BECAUSE IT'S INCONSISTENT LANGUAGE WITH 7 7 3.
[01:10:01]
THE SF IT'S THE INTENT OF IF YOU'RE ZONE MULTIFAMILY, BUT YOU'RE BUILDING A SINGLE FAMILY, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT NOW, WHATEVER THE NEW TERMINOLOGY IS, 7 7 1 IS WHAT TAKES YOU BACK TO 4 92, WHICH IS WHAT TAKES YOU BACK TO WHAT IT IS THAT IS NOTICED.BUT THIS IS, THIS ISN'T TECHNICALLY GOING TO BE LIKE ONE FAMILY LIVING IN THE THREE UNITS.
THERE'S ALSO GONNA BE A CARETAKER.
BUT SF THREE NOW ALLOWS THREE UNITS.
SO IT'S JUST A PIECE OF THAT THEY MISSED.
AGAIN, IF YOU'RE GOING TO WRITE CODE, YOU NEED TO NO, YOU CAN'T DO IT ALL TOGETHER BECAUSE IT ALL HOOKS TOGETHER.
UH, SO I'M JUST SAYING THAT 7 71 TAKES YOU TO WHAT IS NOTICED AND I'M COMFORTABLE, IT'S WHETHER OR NOT LEGAL CAN GET COMFORTABLE WITH MY LOGIC.
I DID NOTICE A PLANNING COMMISSIONER IN THE ROOM COULD PROBABLY TAKE THAT.
WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER VAN OLAND SUGGESTED ERICA LOPEZ.
I ALWAYS SAY COUNCIL MEMBER, I'M GIVING US WAY MORE CREDIT THAN WE DO
I'LL TAKE THE FREE RAISES IF I CAN GET THE SALARY THAT COMES WITH IT.
PLEASE, PLEASE KNOW MS. LOPEZ.
WITH THAT, WITH REASONABLE USE.
GOOD JOB BEING A CODE NERD PAYS OFF YOU.
DID YOU WANT TO PUT CONDITIONS ON THAT BECAUSE THERE WERE CONDITIONS REQUESTED BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD? YEAH.
YES, I DO HAVE THAT WRITTEN DOWN HERE IN MY, IN MY HARDSHIP, IN MY, MY FINDINGS.
SO WHAT IS, WHAT IS, WHAT IS YOUR MOTION BASICALLY THAT THE FS THAT IT'D BE CONSTRUCTED WITH FSG STANDARD CONSISTENT WITH THE FS THREE USE.
AND SO THEREFORE, SINCE IT'S ALREADY IN THE RECORD, I WANTED IT.
THEY ALSO WANTED A SCREEN WALL AND THERE WAS SOME PERVIOUS COVER.
SO ELAINE HAS, WELL, BEFORE WE DO READ OUR FINDINGS, ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION QUESTION? I CAN'T DO IT.
I ALREADY GOT YELLED AT BY LEGAL.
I WOULD LIKE TO ASK MR. WEBER A QUESTION AND THEN I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU A QUESTION.
WHAT QUESTION WOULD YOU LIKE TO ASK ME? UM, THE, THE, SO THE QUESTION IS, YES, WE'RE VERY COMFORTABLE FOLLOWING SF THREE, BUT OBVIOUSLY THE REASON WE'RE HERE IS, EXCEPT IS BECAUSE THE TWO VARIANCES RELATED TO SF THREE USE THAT WE ARE REQUESTING IS OBVIOUSLY IMPERVIOUS COVER.
AND YOU'RE GONNA GET THE FAR WE'RE WE'RE GREAT WITH SF THREE EXCEPT FOR THOSE TWO PIECES.
NO, I'M GONNA, THAT'S GONNA, I'M GONNA SPECIFIC, I JUST HAD TO GET US THROUGH THE NOTICE ISSUE.
NO, WE, WE STILL BE GRANTING ON THE VARIANCES REQUEST.
AND CAN YOU COME DOWN TO THE MICROPHONE AND TELL ME YOUR NAME AND LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION OF WHAT QUESTION YOU WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE BOARD.
SORRY, I'M GETTING IN TROUBLE ALL OVER THE PLACE.
YOU ARE BECAUSE THIS HAS TO BE RELEVANT TO THE CASE.
WHO IS EITHER ONE? THIS ONE RIGHT HERE, I THINK COME UP TO THE PODIUM.
YOU'LL HAVE TO STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
UM, I'VE BEEN WAITING TO COME IN HERE FOR A MINUTE BECAUSE OF WHAT YOU JUST SAID ABOUT PEOPLE, UM, NOT WANTING TO, UH, CODE LIKE, YOU KNOW, IT PAYS TO BE A CODER.
WELL, WHAT IF I WAS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF IT? WHY WOULD A CODER HAVE THE RIGHT TO, UM, DO A-D-D-O-S ATTACK ON, UH, SOMEONE WHO DOES NOT AGREE WITH CODING? WHAT IS DDOS? I THINK HERE YOU'RE MISINTERPRET.
WE'RE REFERRING SPECIFICALLY TO THE LAND ORDINANCE CODE A NOT COMPUTER CODE, ZONING CODE.
DDOS IS A DIRECT DENIAL OF SERVICE ATTACK.
IT'S SOMETHING WE DEAL WITH IN IT SECURITY.
THIS IS, THIS IS, WELL, EVEN WITH THE CODING OF THAT AND THE ZONING, WHY WOULD SOMEONE WHO DID WASN'T AWARE, EVEN THOUGH I WASN'T, UM, I HADN'T DECIDED MY, UH, MY MAJOR YET, BUT I WANTED TO BE IN POLITICS AND, UM, FROM WHAT I HAVE HEARD AND, UH, EVERYTHING'S BEEN BLOCKED FOR ME TO SEE THE TRUTH.
I DON'T EVER GET TO SEE THE NEWS.
I NEVER GET TO SEE ANYTHING TO KEEP ME UP TO DATE WITH ZONING PROCESSES OR REAL NEWS.
I THINK, I THINK THIS ONE, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE CAN ANSWER THAT WITHIN THE TIME FRAME OF THE CASE.
BUT I'M GLAD TO MEET YOU AFTER.
AND PERHAPS SHE IS THE ZONING GURU.
SO, OKAY, SO HOW CAN I, 'CAUSE I GET EMAILS ALL THE TIME AND I'VE ALREADY APPLIED TO BE A PART OF THE COMMISSION AND, AND A FEW OTHER THINGS.
HOW CAN I BE THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED
[01:15:01]
AFTERWARDS? THAT AGAIN, LIKE I SAID BEFORE, THIS IS A QUA JUDICIAL BOARD.WE CAN ONLY SPEAK DIRECTLY ON THE MERITS OF THE QUA OF THE CASE OF THE CASE.
SO IF YOU HAD A QUESTION SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO THIS CASE, WE COULD HEAR IT.
BUT THESE ARE OUTSIDE OF WHAT WE'RE NOTICED FOR TEXAS REQUIRES US TO ONLY SPEAK ON WHAT'S ON THE AGENDA.
WELL, I WAS HOLDING THE AGENDA AND SOMEWHAT AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN IT WAS GONE AND NO ONE HAD OH NO, THAT'S JUST, YEAH, NO, THEY'VE, THEY'VE FIXED IT.
THAT HAPPENS IN THE EVENING TIME.
BUT, UH, IT WILL BE DONE IN PROBABLY ABOUT 15 MINUTES AND I'M HAPPY TO SIT OUTSIDE AND DISCUSS.
WELL, I'D RATHER THIS TIME WHEN I LEAVE, UM, I DOESN'T TAKE ME 13 YEARS TO COME BACK.
SO JUST HANG OUTSIDE AFTERWARDS.
WE'LL COME OUT FOR THE ONES THAT ARE HERE, WE'LL COME OUT.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION FROM BOARD MEMBERS? OKAY.
THE ZONING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY DO NOT ALLOW FOR REASONABLE USE BECAUSE ZONING REGULATIONS WHICH DO PERMIT A REASONABLE USE VIA MF THREE ZONING AND, AND A ZONE.
WELL, I'M NOT GONNA GO INTO THAT.
UM, TO ACCOMMODATE, LEMME GO BACK HERE.
THE ZONING REGULATIONS DO PERMIT A REASONABLE USE VIA M THREE ZONING VIA MANY MONTHS OF LONG A'S REZONING PROCESS TO ACCOMMODATE THE NEWLY ENACTED HOME ORDINANCE.
NOW NEARLY FULLY TO SF THREE USE THAT REFLECTS THE LOWER IMPACT BILL.
THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THEIR INTENT.
THE INTENDED USE FOR ZONING DOES NOT ALLOW FOR U REASONABLE U USE.
LEMME GO DOWN HERE TO PAGE SEVEN TO, SINCE THE OWNERS ARE COMMITTED TO USE THE PREVIOUS CONCRETE FOR THE DRIVEWAY AND PARKING AREAS, WHICH WILL LESSEN THE IMPACT OF THIS VARIANCE REQUEST, I KNOW THAT I JUST BUTCHERED THAT ALL THE HECK, BUT I'LL GIVE IT STAFF ON IT.
THE HARDSHIP FOR WHICH A VARIANCE IS REQUESTED IS UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY IN THAT DUE TO THE CHANGE IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ON ONSET OF THE HOME ORDINANCE, THE APPLICANT IS UNABLE TO REASONABLY REMODEL THE HOME TO ACCOMMODATE THE HEALTH AND SAFETY CONCERNS RELATED TO ACCESS TO INGRESS AND EGRESS OF THE RESIDENCE.
THE HARDSHIP IS NOT GENERAL TO THE AREA IN WHICH PROPERTY IS LOCATED BECAUSE THE ONLY AREA ON THE SITE THAT ACCOMMODATES THE ITS ACCESS AND TURNING RADIO RADIAT ARE THE REQUIRED LANDINGS AND CLEARANCES IS BETWEEN THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, WHICH NECESSITATES MORE DRIVEWAY COVERAGE TO ACCESS AREA CHARACTER.
THE VARIANCE WILL NOT ALTER THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY, WILL NOT IMPAIR THE USE OF THE ADJACENT CONFORMING PROPERTY AND WILL NOT IMPAIR THE PURPOSE OF THE ZONING REGULAT OF THE REGULATIONS OF THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
BECAUSE GRANTING THIS VARIANCE WILL NOT ONLY WILL NOT ONLY NOT IMPAIR, BUT WILL UPHOLD AND BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SF THREE ZONING IN THE AREA OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THIS, UH, MOTION, MADAME CHAIR WILL, WILL HAVE THE CAVEAT OF FS THREE STANDARD CONSISTENT WITH FS THREE USE.
AND MELISSA, I BELIEVE YOU HAD ALSO A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT AS WELL.
SO THE, THE FAR IN THE INCREASE OF IMPERVIOUS COVER, BUT I BELIEVE THERE WAS A SCREEN WALL REQUESTED FOR THE FRONT FOR THE PARKING.
IS THAT CORRECT? AND IT'S AN EIGHT FOOT SCREEN WALL
IF IT'S NOT WITHIN, IF IT'S AT THE SETBACK, IT WOULD NEED TO BE INTERIOR TO THE PROPERTY OR ELSE IT WOULD'VE HAD TO BEEN NOTICED.
SO THE, THE ONLY OTHER REQUEST BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS SIMPLY WITH NEW PARKING SPOTS IN THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY TO ACCOMMODATE THE INCREASED UNIT WAS TO PROVIDE SOME LANDSCAPE SHRUBBERY SCREENING THAT'S FINE.
OF THE PARKING FROM THE STREET AND THEN THE REQUISITE DUST WALLS AND FENCING FOR THE CONSTRUCTION SITE TO REDUCE THE IMPACT TO THE NEIGHBORS.
OKAY, SO THAT'S JUST CONSTRUCTION FENCING? YEAH, THAT'S OKAY.
SO WITH THE ADDITIONAL SCREENING AND THE CONSTRUCTION CARE EXCEPT THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.
AND DO YOU WANNA TIE THAT TO ANYTHING OR YOU WANT A DRAWING OR ANYTHING? I DON'T.
CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION INSPECTOR WOULD TELL THEM WHAT THEY CAN AND CANNOT.
I'M TALKING ABOUT THE VERY, OKAY, LEMME MAKE SURE I GOT ALL THIS.
SO THIS IS A MOTION TO APPROVE MADE BY BOARD MEMBER OF NOLAN, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR HAWTHORN FOR AN PREVIOUS COVER INCREASE TO 0.65 AN FAR INCREASE TO 0.5 WITH THE CONDITION OF
[01:20:01]
SF THREE STANDARDS AND SF THREE USE, UH, WITH A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT MADE BY VICE CHAIR HAWTHORNE FOR LANDSCAPE OR SCREENING THAT HIDE THE NEW PARKING SPACES IN THE FRONT FROM THE STREET.I I'M WORRIED ABOUT THE SF THREE USE.
WELL I DO YOU THINK THAT 25 2 7 11 REQUIRES IT VICE CHAIR HOR? I, I'M NOT SURE IF THAT'S RELATED.
THOSE CONDITIONS ARE RELATED TO THE VARIANCE THAT'S BEING REQUESTED.
UH, AS PART OF THE BOARD, THIS GREENING THE THE SCREENING.
THE SCREENING AND DURING THE CONSTRUCTION, THAT'S WHERE I WAS GOING WITH IT.
THE INSPECTOR WILL TAKE CARE OF THE YEAH, THE CONSTRUCTION, THE ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTOR WOULD COME OUT AND HE'LL TELL THEM WHERE THEY PUT THE SCREENING.
TYPE OF GOES BEYOND CONTROL CONSTRUCTION.
THE SHRUBBERY WOULD BE PERMANENT.
THEY A QUESTION PERMANENT SHRUBBERY OR SOME KIND OF YEAH, THAT IS, THAT IS GERMANE TO THE MOTION.
BUT THE SCREENING AND THE, BECAUSE THEY'RE ADDING DISPUTE DUST CONTROL, THE, THAT'S, THAT'S ALL DONE THROUGH THE INSPECTOR ON SITE.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL INSPECTOR WILL DO THAT.
BUT WE'RE OKAY WITH THE SF THREE USE REQUIREMENT CONDITION.
DON'T PUT A FLY IN THE, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE BEFORE WE CLOSE THIS OUT.
ADDITION OF SF THREE STANDARDS AND SF THREE USE, BUT THE EXCEPTIONS OF THE TWO VARIANCES WILL BE GRANTING THEY WOULD ONLY BE ABLE TO BUILD UNDER THE 25 2 7 7 3 UNDER AS MODIFIED UNDER 25 2 4 92 UNDER 25.
2 7 7 1 IF THEY WERE USING IT AS SF THREE.
IT WAS ARDUOUS, BUT IT WORKED.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON THE MOTION FROM THE BOARD? MA MADAM CHAIR? UH, YES.
CAN YOU REPEAT THE GRANT
THIS IS A MOTION TO APPROVE MADE BY BOARD MEMBER VAN OLAN, SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR HAWTHORNE FOR AN IMPERVIOUS COVER INCREASE TO 0.65 FAR, INCREASE TO 0.5 WITH THE CONDITION OF SF THREE STANDARDS, SF THREE USE, AND A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT FOR LANDSCAPE SHRUBBERY OR SCREENING OF THE NEW PARKING SPACES IN THE FRONT FROM THE STREET.
AND I HAVE THIS LANGUAGE TYPED UP SO I CAN EMAIL THIS TO YOU SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO WATCH THE VIDEO SEVEN TIMES.
LET'S GO AHEAD AND CALL THE VOTE.
YOUR VARIANCE HAS BEEN GRANTED.
AND AGAIN, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR WORKING TOGETHER.
[7. Discussion of the September 9, 2024, Board of Adjustment activity report ]
ITEM SEVEN.THIS IS A DISCUSSION ONLY ITEM, A NON ACTUAL ITEM, UH, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT.
UM, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT? NO.
[8. Discussion and possible action for adopting meeting dates for Jan. 2025-Dec. 2025 ]
EIGHT, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION FOR ADOPTING MEETING DATES FOR JANUARY, 2025 THROUGH DECEMBER, 2025.SO HOPEFULLY EVERYONE HAS GONE ONLINE AND LOOKED AT THESE DATES BECAUSE THE SOLE PURPOSE OF US VOTING ON THEM TONIGHT IS TO ENSURE THAT WE AREN'T OVERLAPPING WITH ANY HOLIDAYS AND THAT YOU WILL BE AVAILABLE TO SHOW UP FOR THE MEETING.
SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND OPEN IT UP TO DISCUSSION.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? I DID NOT CHECK THE HOLIDAY SCHEDULE, BUT I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL AND IF WE NEED TO COME BACK, WE WILL.
SO DO YOU HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE MADE BY VICE CHAIR HAWTHORNE? DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND? UH, WHO WAS THAT, SORRY? BRIAN.
OH, IS THAT MR. POTE? MR. POTE? DID I GET IT RIGHT? THANK YOU.
OKAY, SO JUST TO GO OVER IT, THIS WILL BE, UH, MEETING DATES FOR 2025,
[01:25:01]
WHICH WILL BE HELD HERE.3 0 1 WEST SECOND STREET, AUSTIN, TEXAS, IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER'S ROOM 1001 ON THE SECOND MONDAY OF THE MONTH FOR THE MOST PART.
OCTOBER 13TH, NOVEMBER 10TH AND DECEMBER 8TH.
OKAY, LET'S, UH, GOING ONCE, GOING TWICE, LET'S CALL THE VOTE.
AND YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A VARIANCE OR SPECIAL EXCEPTION, I WILL JUST ASK, IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO THE ADOPTION OF THESE DATES? OKAY, MOTION IS APPROVED,
[FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS]
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS.SO I'M GONNA JUMP BACK TO THE GAS STATION, UH, VARIANCE WE JUST HEARD.
I WILL BRING THAT TO, UH, PC AGAIN, WE'LL SEE IF WE CAN GET THAT.
AND I'LL BRING IT TO MY COUNCILMAN'S AGENDA.
IF YOU GUYS COULD MAYBE DO THE SAME THING, SEND A LETTER TO YOUR COUNCIL PERSON AND LET'S JUST SEE IF WE CAN DRAW SOME OF THE STAFFER'S ATTENTION TO IT AND MAYBE WE CAN GET THIS MOVING FORWARD.
UH, GETTING THAT TRANSPORTATION CRITERIA MANUAL UPDATED.
UM, IS THAT SOMETHING WE NEED TO PUT ON A FUTURE AGENDA OR, OR I MEAN, IF WE WANT TO DO LIKE A WORKING GROUP ON IT, MAYBE OTHERWISE, I MEAN, I'LL JUST HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT AT PC UNTIL IT SHOWS UP IN FRONT OF US AGAIN.
SO I KNOW ALSO WE CAN'T NORMALLY GET STAFF BRIEFINGS, BUT I THINK IT WOULD HELP A LOT OF THE BOARD MEMBERS IF WE HAD A BRIEFING ON HOME AND HOME TWO AND HOW IT WILL AFFECT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AS WE JUST SAW, IT'S GONNA START GETTING A LITTLE CONFUSING.
WOULD THAT BE POSSIBLE TO ARRANGE? I DO HAVE A QUESTION WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE.
UH, BOARD MEMBER BOWEN, WHAT DO YOU GOT? WELL, BACK ON YOUR GAS STATION ISSUE SINCE I USED TO BUILD THOSE AT ONE TIME.
UM, I THINK ONE OF THE IMPORTANT PORTIONS THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED IN THAT IS THE FUELING TRUCKS COMING IN AND COMING OUT FOR SAFE ACCESS.
I THINK THEY'RE ALREADY REQUIRED THROUGH THE TCM TO PUT ALL THE, THE FILLS ON THE OUTER PART, UH, LIKE THE FARTHEST PART, UH, OF THE PUMPS.
AM I WRONG ON THAT ONE? WELL, I'M JUST, I'M JUST STATING THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO, IF YOU'RE GOING TO GO ADDRESS THAT, THAT THAT IS A, UH, CONSIDERATION BECAUSE THE PLACEMENT OF TANKS, WHICH IS WHERE THE FUEL POINTS ARE, UH, ESPECIALLY ON TIGHT SITES OKAY.
MAKES IT VERY DIFFICULT AND MAKE, CAN BE A VERY UNSAFE.
SO WHY DON'T WE MAKE THIS FUTURE AGENDA ITEM SO WE CAN ACTUALLY DISCUSS IT PROPERLY.
UH, CAN WE GET THIS ADDED TO THE NEXT AGENDA PLEASE? A ELAINE FOR JUST A BRIEF DISCUSSION, UH, WITH NO ACTION BECAUSE I'LL TAKE IT TO PC MYSELF.
ANY OTHER FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS OR ANNOUNCEMENTS? ANYBODY GETTING MARRIED? I HAVE NO
UM, BUT, UH, I, I WANTED TO DISCUSS, THIS MIGHT SEEM SILLY, BUT OUR PRACTICE OF READING THE SPECIFICS OF EACH HARDSHIP AND UM, LIKE WHEN WE HAVE TO DO THE MOTION, UM, I JUST WANNA DISCUSS WHY WE HAVE TO DO THAT OR WHETHER WE HAVE TO DO THAT.
TO PUT THAT ON THE AGENDA, IT'S REQUIRED BY STATE LAW.
I CAN SEND THAT TO YOU IF YOU'D LIKE.
BUT IN THAT CASE THEN CAN WE PUT ON OUR, UM, AGENDA, UPDATING OUR PROCESSES TO REFLECT THAT REQUIREMENT BECAUSE OUR BYLAWS, OR NOT OUR BYLAWS, BUT OUR PROCESS AND PROCEDURES OR WHATEVER, DON'T SAY THAT WE NEED TO DO THAT.
WELL IT SAYS THE, SO COMPLETELY OPTIONAL.
THEY WERE DIFFERENT FOR SIGNS THAN THEY WERE FOR CASES FOR VARIOUS.
ALL OF THIS COULD BE DISCUSSED IN THE FUTURE.
I'M JUST, YEAH, LIKE, SO WHY DON'T WE ADD THIS AS A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM, THE FINDINGS, DISCUSSION ON THE READING OF THE FINDINGS.
AND WE CAN ALSO GO THROUGH THE HISTORY OF THAT TOO.
WHY, UH, THE BOARD STARTED READING THROUGH THE FINDINGS.
[01:30:02]
ANYTHING ELSE? OKAY, THE TIME IS 7:15 PM WE ARE ADJOURNED.